Encyclopaedia Biblica/Wisdom of Jesus-Zarephath

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Wisdom of Jesus-Zarephath
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

WISDOM OF JESUS[edit]

See ECCLESIASTICUS, SIRACH.

WISE MEN[edit]

(DVpnn), Gen. 418. See MAGIC, 3, STARS, 5, ZOROASTRIANISM ; cp also WISDOM LITERATURE, 2.

WITCH[edit]

(!)v ; 3). Dt. 18:10, WITCHCRAFT (DDJ5), 1 S. 15:23 . See MAGIC, 2b, 3:1-2

WITHES, GREEN[edit]

AVmg 'green [moist] cords', RVmg 'new bowstrings' (C n^ C"irP, yetharim lahim), Judg. 16:7. On the meaning of n"S, lah, see COLOURS, 17 ; for W&n, yether, see CORD. Bowstrings of 'green' gut, not yet dried, are probably meant.

WITNESS[edit]

The part played by witnesses in Jewish legal procedure has been dealt with in LAW AND JUSTICE, 10+

The Hebrew word is -\y [AD], ed, the Aramaic sahda (x7na) ; and in two passages in OT these two terms are treated as synonymous (Gen. 31:47, -\y || Nnnnb ; Job 16:19, iy || inb). The Arabic word is ahid or shahid (cp Palmyr. ino ; see Cook, Aram. Gloss., s.r.). The root shahida (=Aram. sehed ; cp inb with Ar. sharada) seems to have meant originally 'to be present' (cp the use of shuhud in Koran , Sur. 74:13), and then 'to bear (be present as) witness'. Shahid is both a witness in general, and one who witnesses to the truth of his creed by dying (see Sur. 4:71, 39:69). The original meaning of the Hebrew root was perhaps (as Gen. 31:47, Job 16:19 suggest) the same as in Arabic.

Gen. 31:44, 43:52 describes how a heap of stones was witness O# ; was present to remind) of some transaction ; Dt. 31:19, 31:21 says that the song of Moses was witness to (">y ; existed or was present to remind) the Israelites of a great achievement. For other instances of the use of -|y in a similar sense see BDB, where, however, the idea of the root is taken to be that of 'reiterating, hence emphatically affirming'.

The word used in the NT is /j.dpTvs [martus] (fjuiprvp- [martyr-]). It was employed by Christians, as by Muhammedans, to describe

  • (1) simply one who witnessed to the truth, and then
  • (2) particularly one who gave evidence of the truth by dying, and so a martyr.

For (1) see Acts 1:22. The word is already used in the second sense (2) in the NT. So in Acts 22:20 (AV; RV 'witness').Kai oTf fEf fiTo To aiua ETfphavou Tou uapTupos crou [kai ote exe eito to aima Stephanou tou martyros sou]; Rev 2:13 (AV, RV 'witness), AvTinas o uapTus uou, o nicrTos [uou], os anfKTavThf yap uuiu [Antipas o martus mou, o pistos [mou], os apektanthe gar hymiu]; Rev. 17:6 (EV), Kai fidov Tfv yuvaiKa ufTucroucrav fK Tf aiuaTos Twv ayiwv, Kai fK TwvaiuaTos Twv uapTupwv Ifcrou [kai eidon ten gynaika methysousan ek te aimatos toon agioon, kai ek toonaimatos toon martyroon Iesou]

In ancient times the heroes of mankind were commonly represented as being distinguished from other men by (amongst other characteristics) the manner in which they entered and departed life. They were not born in the usual way, or, if so, out of due course; they disappeared from life in a mysterious way, or they showed themselves superior to death by dying cheerfully under painful circumstances. Thus both by their birth and by their death they witnessed to their superiority. This was specially the case with founders of religions. But 'the faithful' were also called upon to bear witness. While, however, the master gave evidence of the truth of his claims by the wonderful words and works of his whole life, the faithful could in most cases only witness to the truth of them by following the master's teaching even unto death. Disciples, therefore, in some cases, sought and actually found martyrdom ; in other cases they are represented by tra dition as having so suffered, whether they did so or not. The idea of witness by miracle and martyrdom is confined to no single religion. Cp WONDERS.

M. A. C.

WIZARD[edit]

(jyT), Lev. 20:27. See MAGIC, 4, iii.

WOLF[edit]

(3N? [Z'B]; {1} AYKOC [lukos]; lupus). This is the usual word for wolf, though in Is. 13:22 RV renders r>N, 'iyyim, and SBOT D an, tannim, by 'wolves'; see JACKAL, and, on the variety of terms for wild animals, CAT. In Is. 116 a notable reference is made to the wolf, which as a type of ferocity is brought into contrast with the lamb. 2 The full force of the phrase employed is that the wolf will, as it were, become a ger or client of the lamb (cp STRANGER).

The wolf (Canis lupus) has a very wide range, extending practically throughout North America (N. of Mexico), Europe, and Asia. Many local varieties occur, which have been by various authorities raised to the rank of species. The wolf is still found in Palestine (and Arabia, cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 1:327). It is there somewhat lighter in colour and has a stronger and stouter build than in Europe, rarely moves in packs, and prowls, sometimes in pairs, round the sheepfolds at night. By day it frequents the rocky valleys. Naturally it plays a large part in the life of the Israelites, and the references to its boldness and ferocity are frequent (cp Gen. 49:27, Jer. 5:6, Ezek. 22:27, Hab. 1:8, Zeph. 3:3). However, if the cubs be removed at a very early age they are susceptible of training, though they can rarely be trusted with strangers.

The word for 'wolf' is frequently used as a personal and clan name (cp Cook, Aram. Glass, s.v. 13x1, and see ZEEB), 3 and it has accordingly been held that it was a totem-animal among certain communities (at least) of the ancient Semites. 4 For the wolf in Semitic legend and folklore see WRS, Kinship, 198, Rel. Sem.(2) 88.

A. E. S.

1 According to Hommel (Saugethiere, 303+), 3NT [Z'B] is the jackal ; see on the other hand ZDMG, 1880, p. 373, and cp JACKAL. The Ass. cognate zibu appears to denote also a bird of prey.

2 Compare the contrast in Mt. 10:16, 'sheep in the midst of wolves', and Acts 20:29, where Paul at Miletus warns the 'flock' against the AUKOI /Sapeis [lykoi bareis].

3 The fact that the name 'wolf' is given to a sickly child, 'that their human fragility may take on as it were a temper of the kind of those animals' (cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 1:329) does not weaken the above argument, since, in some cases, this name is borne not by individuals but by whole clans (cp Kin. 197-198).

4 See Robertson Smith, J. Phil. 9:75+, and cp Frazer, Pausanias, 2:195-196.

WOMAN[edit]

(HLj N), Gen. 222. See FAMILY, especially 4-6; MARRIAGE, esp. 4-7; LAW, 14a; SLAVERY ; and cp ADAM, esp. 3b.

WONDERS[edit]

The EV shows some uncertainty as to the translation of the Hebrew and Greek synonyms.

(1) nfl lD, mopheth, is rendered by 'wonder' in Dt. 13:1 [13:2], 28:46 EV, but in Ex. 7:9, Dt. 29:3 EV by 'miracle'. The meaning of the root is uncertain, but see BDB and cp below under (5).

(2) t^S, pele ; lit. 'wonder', so EV Is. 29:14 ; cp Judg. 6:13, niphlaoth, AV 'miracles', RV 'wondrous works'.

(3) n lK, 'oth; lit. 'sign', so commonly in EV, Dt. 13:1 [13:2], 28:46 etc. In Nu. 14:22, Dt. 11:3, RV 'signs', AV 'miracles'.

(4) Svva.fi.if [dynamis], lit. 'power'. In Mk. 1:39, AV 'miracle', RV 'mighty work'. Cp Acts 2:22 'a man, approved by God among you, by miracles (RV 'mighty works'), wonders, and signs', . . . fiiWfieo-t <cai re pacri KO.L <njftftoi? [ounamesi kai terasi kai semeiois] - a suggestive passage. In Acts 8:13, 19:11, 1 Cor. 12:10, 12:2, 12:8, Gal. 3:5, EV 'miracles'; but in Heb. 2:4, AV 'miracles', RV 'powers'.

(5) T pa? [teras], Acts 2:22, 6:8, 15:12, Heb. 2:4, EV 'wonders'. Two derivations are noted in Grimm-Thayer (Lexicon, s.v.), neither of which can be pronounced very satisfactory. They are:

  • (1) apparently akin to the verb Trjpeoi [tereoo]; accordingly something so strange as to cause it to be 'watched' or 'observed' ;
  • (2) connected 'with acmjp atrrpairn [aster astrape], etc., hence "a sign in the heavens"'. If the Heb. mopheth (1, above) be connected with Ar. 'ipha 'to suffer evil' (see BDB, s.v. nBN), we might perhaps Compare for re pas [teras] the root reipaj [teiroo] 'to suffer distress'; the idea would then be 'a calamity or catastrophe' = 'a portent'.

(6) o-Tjjueioi [semeion], lit. 'sign', like (3) above. So in Mk. 8:11-12, Lk. 11:16, 11:29-30, Mt. 12:38-39, 16:14, Jn. 2:18, 6:30, 1 Cor. 1:22, Acts 2:22, Heb. 24:. But AV 'wonder', RV 'sign', Rev. 12:1 ; EV 'miracle', Lk. 238, Acts 4:16, 4:22; AV 'miracle', RV 'sign', 1 Jn. 1:4, 1:5, 1:10, 1:41, 2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 6:2, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 11:47, 12:37, Acts 6:8, 8:6, 15:12, Rev. 13:14, 16:14, 19:20.

The original idea in the word 'wonder' (Lat. 'miraculum', Angl. 'miracle') seems to have been that of turning aside through a feeling of fear or awe (see Skeat, Etymol. Dict., s.v.). The savage 'ignorant of the very rudiments of science, and trying to get at the meaning of life by what the senses seem to tell' (to quote Tylor, Anthrop. 343) would often turn aside when he came face to face with something new, unexpected, or extraordinary.

'The emotion named Wonder is founded on relativity. It is more than simple novelty. One degree beyond novelty is surprise , or the shock of what is both novel and unexpected. . . Wonder contains surprise, attended with a new and distinct effect, the effect of contemplating something that rises far above common experience, which elevates us with a feeling of superiority' (Alexander Bain, The Emotions and the Will, 8:5-6 [1899]).

'A wonder' then is something which cannot be explained from the ordinary experience of mankind in general at a given time, but, as Hobbes pointed out (Leviathan, chap. 27), 'seeing admiration and wonder are consequent to the knowledge wherewith men are endued, some more, some less, it followeth that the same thing may be a miracle to one and not to another'. As regards many of the wonders that surrounded them (the wonder of life, the wonder of creation) primitive men would be very much on a level and would all be satistied with a fanciful explanation ; but with regard to others (the wonder or effect of certain herbs, for instance) some men would soon, at first by chance, attain some ^measure of knowledge and thereby them selves become relatively wonderful and wonder-workers (medicine-men, obi-men). In the eyes of his admirers, however, the man who is relatively wonderful, soon grows to be very much more than this. Obviously, therefore, there is a very close connection between wonders or miracles and myths ; the growth and development of both would go on almost, if not quite, simultaneously. Obviously, too, the wonder is closely connected with exorcism and sorcery.

'Exorcism and sorcery pass insensibly into miracle. . . If the marvellous results are ascribed to a supernatural being at enmity with the observers, the art is sorcery; but if ascribed to a friendly supernatural being, the marvellous results are classed as miracles (Herbert Spencer, Principles of Sociology (3), 1:246).

The very word in English, as we have seen, indicates the way we must take if we wish to understand the meaning of wonders. It is clear that a thorough examination of the subject would involve an investigation into the evolution of ideas in general, into psychology, anthropology, comparative religion and mythology. If Dr. Bacon in his new definition of higher criticism is thinking of the comparative method, such an investigation would indeed come within the province of that science. 'If a new definition of the higher criticism may be permitted so late', he says, 'we should call it the study of the origin and development of ideas' (Triple Tradition of the Exodus, 33). In any case, in view of the results of the comparative method of study, 1 it is impossible to treat the subject of wonders or miracles on the old lines. Here, however, it need only be pointed out that it is now evident that no religion can be isolated and treated separately ; that myths, and wonders, whether natural (cp below) or supernatural, are not peculiar to any one system ; and that the ideas of primitive man, or the savage, have left their mark even on the most advanced religions.

Comparative mythology shows that man has given explanations of the universe which indicate that the mind moves everywhere along very similar lines. Comparative religion teaches that even when men had attained to no small degree of general culture they still demanded outward and visible signs of the efficacy of their faith. The sage, or the founder of a religion, who claimed to enlighten his fellows, was expected to produce evidence, apart from his teaching, that he was endowed in a peculiar and extraordinary way. As a witness to his superiority, he was expected to perform wonders (or give a sign, cp [3] and [6] above). And as such a one was in most cases, owing to his superior knowledge, on a higher level than his contemporaries, he was, no doubt, often as a matter of fact able to do things which to them appeared wonderful ; he may often have been able to cure diseases, perhaps even to restore to life a body that was to all appearance lifeless ; he was, no doubt, often able to exercise a remarkable influence over men s minds, and perhaps to cure certain mental diseases. It is difficult to calculate the effect that such a display of power would have on those who did not understand its nature. It is easy, on the other hand, to understand that such evidence of a power out of the common having been furnished, wonders of a different nature would also be ascribed to the master by his disciples, especially after his decease. His works and his teaching would seem to combine to suggest that he did not belong to the life of the earth ; he must be a favourite of one of the deities, or of the Deity, or a son of one of the deities, or of the Deity, or even an actual deity come in the flesh. The wonders with which he would now be ac credited would no longer be relative and natural, but absolute and supernatural (i.e., miracles). It would be represented, especially after his decease, that the manner of his appearance in the world, and of his disappearance from it when his mission had been accomplished, were alike remarkable ; that if his mother was human, his father was divine, that if he seemed to die like other men, it was not so in reality. He would no longer be described as merely healing diseases, physical and psychical, by natural, but little understood, means. He has become superior to the laws of nature. He walks upon the sea and stills its waves, commands the wind and the storm, cures instantaneously the deaf, the dumb, and the blind, brings to life those who have actually died.

This process went on even in the middle ages.

'Principles of myth-formation, belonging properly to the mental state of the savage, were by its aid [the doctrine of miracles] continued in strong action in the civilised world. Mythic episodes whirh Europeans would have rejected contemptuously if told of savage deities or heroes, only required to be adapted to appropriate local details, and to be set forth as miracles in the life of some superhuman personage to obtain as of old a place of credit and honour in history' (Tylor, Primitive Culture, (3) 1:371-372).

Writings in which miracles figure are not historical in the modern and scientific sense of the word.

Many of the OT and NT narratives in which 'wonders' figure have been treated in special articles, and from various points of view. See, for instance, CREATION, DELUGE, DEMONS, DIVINATION, MAGIC, PLAGUES, ACTS, GOSPELS (cp JESUS), JOHN, LAZARUS, MAKY, NATIVITY, RESUKKECTION, SIMON PETER, SPIRITUAL GIFTS, TEMPTATION. See further R. W. Mackay, The Tubingen School and its Antecedents (1863)); Hugo Winckler, Geschichte Israels, 2 (1900); Th. Trede, Wunderglaube in Heidentum und in der alten Kirche (1901); Supernatural Rel. (new ed. 1902). Cp O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu. The following works, amongst others, have to be taken account of: Grant Allen, Evolution of the Idea of God ; Clodd, Myths and Dreams; Frazer, Golden Bough; Huxley, Hume, also Science and Hebrew Tradition and Science and Christian Tradition; Lang, Custom and Myth, and Myth, Ritual, and Religion ; Lubbock (Avebury), Origin of Civilisation (5) 1889); J. M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (1900); Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology (ISS) and Principles j>f Sociology; Tylor, Early Hist, of Mankind ((3), 1878), Anthropology (1881), Primitive Culture, ((3), 1891). Cp also Darwin, Descent of Man ; Quatrefages, 'The Human Species' (ISS) ; Tolstoy, What is Religion ?

M. A. C.

1 Prof. Cheyne was one of the first critics to apply this method in the case of biblical study. See in EB (9), the articles 'Cosmogony' (6:446+), 'Deluge' (7:54b+), 'Jonah' (13:736-737) also Th. Rev. 211-219 (1877). For more recent examples see CREATION, DELUGE, JONAH, PURIM, etc., and cp DEMONS, TEMPTATION. See also S. A. Cook, 'Israel and Totemism' in JQR, April 1902 ; A. S. Peake, art. 'Unclean', in Hastings' DB.

WOOD[edit]

(f 17), Gen. 6:14. See FOREST, and the special articles.

WOOF[edit]

p-ltf), Lev. 13:48 RVmg 'knitted stuff'. 1 See WEAVING, 7.

WOOL[edit]

(")E>Vi tsemer ; epION [erion]). The sources of wool available in ancient times to the inhabitants of Palestine were three in number the sheep, the camel, and the goat; {1} but, except where another animal is distinctly mentioned (Mk. 1:6, Mt. 3:4, 1 S. 19:13), we may assume that the wool of the sheep is meant. An Arabic saying (cp Bochart, Hieroz. 2:442) declares that the best wool is that of the nakad (see SHEEP) ; it was this wool which Mesha, king of Moab, sent as tribute to the king of Israel (2 K. 3:4 RV). Wool is probably the worst conductor of heat of all the materials used for clothing, and for this reason amongst others has from the earliest times been used as a covering. The finest wool is that cut from the young sheep of about eight months old, and is known as lamb's wool (Prov. 27:23, 27:26); later shearings yield the wether wool, which is either unwashed or washed, the animal in the latter case being washed before submitting to the shears. As is still the case in pastoral countries, the annual sheep-shearing was in ancient times an occasion of great gatherings and rejoicings (1 S. 25:11, 2 S. 13:23; see FEASTS, 2-3). The wool is usually cut a few days after the washing, by which time it has dried. A skilful shearer will remove the whole of the fleece in a continuous sheet, which is then sorted according to its quality. The wool-stapler, whilst doing this, removes the larger and more conspicuous impurities, bits of straw, etc. The wool is then carefully washed with soft water and soap, and dried. At this stage it is still in the condition of matted locks as they come from the body of the animal, and before it can be woven it must be teazed, combed and spun into a thread (see WEAVING). According to EV the wool of Damascus was especially prized at Tyre (Ezek. 27:18); , however, substitutes 'wool from Miletus', and Davidson says, 'possibly, wool of Zachar'. It is a matter for the textual critic (see JAVAN, 1g). On the prohibition to wear 'a mingled stuff, wool and linen together' (Lev. 19:19, Dt. 22:11-12), see LINEN, 7, n. 2, and Crit. Bib. ad loc.

A. K. S.

1 'Wool is a modified form of hair, distinguished by its slender, soft, and wavy or curly structure, and by the highly imbricated or serrated surface of its filaments . . . At what point indeed it can be said that an animal fibre ceases to be hair and becomes wool it is impossible to determine, because in every characteristic the one class by imperceptible gradations merges into the other, so that a continuous chain can be formed from the finest and softest merino to the rigid bristles of the wild boar'. Ency. Brit. (9), s.v. 'wool'.

WORD[edit]

(o Aoroc [o logos])- On 'the Word' see LOGOS.

WORLD[edit]

The words are:

  • (1) ] ~)N, erets, Gen. 1:24;
  • (2) "?3n, tebel, 1 S. 2:8 ;
  • (3) aty, 'olam, Ps. 73:12 ;
  • (4) lj?ri, heled, ; Ps. 17:14 ;
  • (5) nn, hedel, Is. 38:11;
  • (6) alwi [aioon]; Heb. 1:2 ;
  • (7) yrj [ge];
  • (8) KOCT/XO? [kosmos], Jn. 18:36;
  • (9) oifcou/xeVr) [oikoumene], Heb. 2:5.

See EARTH.

WORM[edit]

Worm is the rendering of the following Hebrew words:

1. DD, ses (crfy [ses]) in Is. 51:8-9, where obviously the larva or caterpillar of some clothes-moth is intended See MOTH.

2. yjin, tola (also nySin and nj"?in, from a root meaning 'to gnaw' [Del. Heb. Lang. 66-67; Prol. 115] ; cp nii Wio and niynSo as applied to the teeth), and

3. rrn, rimmah (cp Ar. ramma 'be rotten', rimmatun 'rottenness'), are the words most commonly employed, and - as in vulgar speech - indicate not so much earthworms (which indeed are found in Palestine, cp below), as any elongated crawling animal. LXX renders generally by (TKitiXTjf [skoolex], and in Job ffairpia [sapria], and, less often ff^\f/it [sepsis], Vg. vermis, putredo, tinea. 'The tola' which was bred in the manna (Ex. 16:20, in v. 24 rimmah) means obviously the larva of those flies which breed in organic matter. In hot countries Hies breed with extraordinary rapidity, and maggots not uncommonly appear in sores, etc. ; whence several allusions are made in the OT and Apocrypha to their parasitical tendencies and especially to their habit of preying upon the dead (Job 7:5, 21:26, 24:20 but cp LXX Is. 14:11, cp also 1 Macc. 26:2, Ecclus. 10:11, 19:3). {1} In this connection we find in pre-Christian times the first reference to the fire and worm which afterwards became popularly connected with the notions of a future punishment (Is. 66:24 ; cp Ecclus. 7:17 Judith 16:17 and Mk. 9:44+).

Death by worms, regarded with special horror by the ancients (Herod. 4:205), is said to have been the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc. 9:5+) and of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:23) ; but it must not be forgotten that such statements about eminent but unpopular characters were frequently made by their political opponents in order to discredit their memory. Cp DISEASES, ad fin., and HEROD, 12, ad fin.

The reference to the destruction of vineyards (Dt. 28:39), or of gourds (Jon. 4:7), by a 'worm', probably indicates some beetle - or rather insect-larva - which injures roots or other parts of plants ; but it may refer to certain members of the Myriapoda (Centipedes), which have similar destructive habits and are very numerous in Palestine. With the former we may compare the Gk. l\f/ [ips], ? [ix] and Lat. convolvulus, a kind of vine-weevil (cp Pliny, HN 22:47).

Wood-worms, the larvae of wood-boring beetles, though unmentioned in MT, are referred to in Bar. 6:19 [6:20], in Prov. 124 LXX, where a bad woman is likened to iv jvAw <nctoA>jf [en xyloo skoolex] (3" VrTSi Vp), also 25:20a LXX, aicrn-ep crrjs [er] ifj.o.Ti<a KO.L ericuiATjf fu Au) OUTCOS Aurn; dv&pbs /SAanrti Kap&iai [oosper ses [en] imatioo kai skoolex xyloo outoos lype andros Blaptei kardian] , and the Vg. of 2 S. 23:8 (ipse est quasi tenerrimus ligni vermiculus, qui octingentos interfecit impetu uno).

Finally we may note the metaphorical use of 'worm' to denote a man of low estate or in a miserable position, Job 256, Ps. 22:6 [22:7], Is. 41:14 [not LXX], cp Il. 13:654: ui<rre <ncwAif erri yai jj [ooste skolex epi gaie keito tatheis]

4. px Sni, zohate arets, AV 'worms of the earth' (Mi. 7:17), might possibly refer to true earth-worms (Oligochaeta); but the literal meaning is 'crawling things (cp LXX ffvpovres yijf [syrontes gen]) of the earth', and it is more likely that serpents are intended (so RV, cp Dt. 32:24).

Of the Oligochaeta a dozen species from Palestine have been described, all belonging to the genus Allolobophora, to which fourteen out of the nineteen British species belong. Five of the dozen - viz., A. caliginosa, A. chlorotica, A. foetida, A. veneta, and A. rosea are also British. They are not found in the arid and sandy regions, but are by no means uncommon in the more fertile districts. Cp TOLA, COLOURS, 14.

5. 3,T1, rakab, Hos. 5:12 AVmg (tcvrpov [kentron] [BAQ]= =C p?). The word properly means 'rottenness' (see BDB) ; in Prov. 124, 14:30, however, LXX gives er/coiArjf. CTJS [skoolex ses], just as in Job it renders DD [ses] by a-mrpia [sapria] (see above), rakab also occurs in the Hebrew of Ecclus. 43:20, where Taylor (JQR 10:471 ; Wisdom of Ben Sira, 62-63) adopts the rendering 'skin-bottle', and refers to Geiger's view of Job 13:28 (O.<TKO<; [askos], LXX), which he apparently favours. The text, however, is most probably corrupt ; for 3p12 we should read ni^3, berekoth, rendering 'and he congeals ponds by his cold'. A. E. S. - S. A. C. , 1-4;

T. K. C. , 5.

1 In the difficult passage Job 19:26, 'worms destroy this body', no mention of worms is made by the MT ; cp RV, and see JOB, 6.

2 In this last verse AV has 'hemlock'.

WORMWOOD[edit]

(njl6 Dt. 29:18 [29:17], Prov. 5:4, Jer. 9:15 [9:14], 23:15, Lam. 3:15, 3:19, Am. 5:7, 6:12; {2} and di^irtfos [apsinthos] Rev. 8:11-12). The Hebrew word la'anah is in LXX variously rendered jriicpt [pikria] Dt. 29:18 [29:17], Lam. 3:19, Am. 6:12, \o\rj [chole] Prov. 5:4, Lam. 3:15, avdyxai [anagkai] Jer. 9:15 [9:14], oSvvri [odyne] Jer. 23:15, and v>(/o [hypsos] Am. 5:7. {1} The word auj/ivdos [apsinthos] nowhere occurs in LXX; but Aq. had a\fiivOiov [apsinthion] for la'anah in Prov. 5:4, Jer. 23:15, Lam. 3:19 (?), for rosh in Jer. 9:15 [9:14]. Vg. has amaritudo in Dt. 29:18, but everywhere else absinthium - a rendering which is also supported by Pesh. and Tg.

The origin of the word la'anah is obscure, and the references to it in OT are so purely symbolical, that we learn nothing but that it was an edible substance of extreme bitterness ; it is usually coupled with e tn, rosh, or cjo s, me rosh (see GALL), and once with n"vna merorim (Lam. 3:15, see BITTER HERBS). But a consensus of ancient tradition is in favour of the identification with wormwood, and it may well denote the product of one or more species of Artemisia (perhaps Artemisia judaica] of which as many as seven are enumerated by Tristram (FFP 331) as found in Palestine.

N. M. - W. T. T.-D.

WORSHIP[edit]

See TEMPLE, 34+ ; SACRIFICE ; also SYNAGOGUE, PRAYER, and SALUTATIONS.

WORSHIPPER[edit]

(NCCOKOROC [neookoros]). RV TEMPLEKEEPER. See NEOCOROS.

WREATH[edit]

1. ^HJ, gadil, 1 K. 7:17-18. See FRINGES.

2. rv 7, loyah, 1 K. 7:29, 7:30, 7:36, RV 'wreaths of hanging work'; but the meaning is doubtful and even the reading uncertain. See under LAVER, 1.

WREATHEN WORK[edit]

(i) nbi;, 'aboth, Ex. 28:14, etc. See CORD.

(2) i"l23B , shebakah, 1 K. 7:17, etc. See NET, 5.

WRESTLING[edit]

It is reasonable to assume that the early Hebrews had wrestling-matches. The story of Jacob wrestling with the elohim or divinity (Gen. 32:24-31) seems to presuppose this. If the cycle of Jacob-narratives were as near to the original folk-tales as the cycle of Samson-narratives, we should perhaps have found Jacob indulging like Samson in sportive exhibitions of his strength, for the ancestors of the Hebrews (not Samson alone) were imagined as endowed with Herculean strength (cp Gen. 29:10, 31:45-46, 32:26). It is, however, no sport - this wrestling of Jacob with the divine being; it is the conquest of the god of an already conquered people which has to be effected. This is the historical meaning of the story. Penuel was possibly the citadel of SUCCOTH (q.v.), and within the precinct of the citadel was the sanctuary (see GIDEON, 2). The Jacob-tribe had 'contended with men' and had 'prevailed' - i.e., had conquered Succoth and Penuel externally (Judg. 8:16-17) ; but its admission to full religious privileges had, according to the myth, to be obtained by force. Sargon carried away the deities of conquered places ; but the Jacob-tribe meant to remain at Succoth and Penuel, and consequently had to convert a hostile divinity into a friend. Cyrus did the like at Babylon by geniality towards the priesthood (CYRUS, 6) ; the Jacob-tribe chose to describe its victory in the symbolic language of mythology. The myth grew pale, and the later writers did not understand it. Hosea thought that Jacob s conduct was blameworthy ; a later writer modified the story by the statement that Jacob 'wept and made supplication to him', and it is this later writer whom modern preachers justifiably follow, for he has shown them how to 'turn dross into gold'. 2

The word rendered 'wrestled' in Gen. 32 (p3N*1 v. 25 [v. 24] ; "ipZNH, v. 26 [25]) has been connected by some with p3N, 'abak, 'dust', as if = 'to dust oneself'; others compare MH pZN, 'abak [different neqqudoth], 'to entangle'. But probably the word is corrupt (see Crit. Bib.). In Gen. 30:8 the right word is used - viz., 7RBJ, prop, 'to be twisted together'; see NAPHTALI, 3. Cp, further, MANASSEH, 4.

In the NT ir6.\rj [pale] 'wrestling' is used as a figure for a spiritual struggle (Eph. 6:12) ; we might have expected paxy [mache] (Delitzsch, in his Heb. NT, renders nnSo) ; the Christian's struggle not being against flesh and blood can hardly be called a 'wrestling'. But the word came naturally to his lips. The palrestra was not, it seems, forbidden to Christians ; the writer of 2 Macc. 4:12+. (cp CAP) was naturally more sensitive, and denounces the priests of Jerusalem who, in the Hellenising movement under Antiochus Epiphanes, 'hastened to take part in the unlawful provision for the palaestra'. The word is happily adopted by RV, following the precedent of 'synagogue'; primarily it means a wrestling school.

Wrestling was a favourite exercise in ancient Egypt (Wilk. Anc. Eg. 2:437, 5:292). It is said to have been introduced into the Olympic contests in the eighteenth Olympiad, from which date it continued to form one of the five games of the pentathlon.

T. K. C.

1 The translator seems in this last case to have read n?l D7 and in the two cases in Jer. to have wrongly connected the word with root njj;.

2 Hos. 12:2-3 [12:3-4] belongs to Hosea, who blames Jacob : the continuation is in vv. 7-9 [vv. 8-10]. vv. 4-6 [vv. 5-7] are eulogistic of Jacob. The expression 'turn dross into gold' is from Gunkel, whose treatment of the story shows much insight, though he has missed the probable historical origin of the story.

WRITING[edit]

1. The alphabet.[edit]

In the study of writing it is important to remember that the word has several meanings, which must be carefully distinguished. In its widest sense, it includes both ideographic and phonetic writing. Ideographic writing consists in the use of symbols to represent visible objects or the ideas which are associated with those objects ; by phonetic writing is meant the use of symbols to represent the sounds or combinations of sounds, which constitute some particular language. When each symbol denotes a single sound, the writing is said to be alphabetic; when each symbol denotes a syllable, the writing is called syllabic. It is probable that writing was at first purely ideographic ; but the oldest systems of writing known to us, namely, the hieroglyphic writing of Egypt and the cuneiform writ ing of Babylonia, consist of ideographic and phonetic symbols combined in various ways. Both in Egypt and in Babylonia the art of writing was practised considerably more than three thousand years before the Christian era. With these systems, however, we ate not at present concerned, since there is no reason to believe that they were at any time in use among the ancient Hebrews, who, like their neighbours, the Moabites, the Phoenicians, and the Aramaeans, employed a purely alphabetic system, consisting of twenty-two letters, usually known as the Semitic alphabet. From the Phoenicians this alphabet was borrowed, with certain important modifications, by the Greeks; from the Greeks it passed on to the other nations of Europe, so that in popular language the term writing is confined to alphabetic writing. When we speak of the writing of Egypt and Babylonia, we are liable to forget that in this case writing means something quite different from that which we ordinarily understand by it.

2. Origin.[edit]

The origin of the Semitic alphabet is extremely obscure. In the ancient world the invention was commonly ascribed to the Phoenicians, 1 sometimes to the Aramaeans, 2 or the Egyptians; 3 but these theories seem to have been based upon mere conjecture, as was the case with so many other beliefs current among the ancients respecting the origin of arts, institutions, and the like. 4

1 Plin. Nat. Hist. 5:12 [5:13] (see also 7:57) ; Lucan, Pharsal. 3:220.

2 Diod. Sic. 5:74, Clem. Alex. Stromateis, 1:16.

3 Plato, Phaedrus, 58, 274 D ; Cicero, De nat. deor. 3:22.

4 That any genuine tradition about the origin of the alphabet should have survived must appear highly improbable when we consider that the inventors of the vowel-points were completely forgotten, although they lived in a much later and a far more civilised age.

In modern times also the theory of the Phoenician origin of the alphabet has been frequently maintained, and many scholars have endeavoured to show that the Phoenicians simply adapted to their own use certain of the phonetic signs employed in Egyptian writing. 1 Others have supposed that the alphabet was developed out of the Babylonian cuneiform character. 2 But, as Winckler has recently observed, the arguments for attributing the invention of the alphabet to the Phoenicians are far from satisfactory. 3 We have, it is true, no right to maintain, with Winckler, that the hypothesis is improbable in itself, for mere generalisations, such as the statement that mercantile peoples are deficient in creative power, prove nothing at all. Nor is much to be said in favour of the rival theory put forward by him, namely, that the alphabet was invented in Babylonia, since the Babylonians, so far as we can ascertain at present, never made use of it for writing their own language. The inscriptions in the Semitic character which appear on some Babylonian and Assyrian weights and contract-tablets prove, indeed, that the alphabet was known in Babylonia ; but as these inscriptions are in the Aramaic language it would seem that the Semitic character was introduced into Babylonia by Arameeans. The arguments which Winckler derives from the shapes of the letters are likewise very precarious. From the fact that 'Ayin is represented by a circle he argues that this letter was not originally included in the alphabet and that the Semitic character must therefore have been invented by a people to whom the sound of 'Ayin was unknown. But the circular form of 'Ayin may be explained by the obvious supposition that it is meant to represent an 'eye' (Heb. 'ayin), precisely as every other letter seems to have been originally a rude portrait of some well-known object, the name of which happened to bi-gin with the sound intended. In some cases both the sliape and the name of the letter clearly indicate the object chosen, and this serves to show that the inventors of the alphabet spoke a Semitic language. But whether they were Phoenicians, Aramaeans, or members of some other Semitic people it is at present [late 19th century] impossible to decide. 4

We are not to suppose that the inventors of the alphabet endeavoured to distinguish the sounds of their language with scientific precision. It would appear that when two or more consonantal sounds bore a certain resemblance to one another they were sometimes represented by a single letter; thus the ancient Semitic alphabet had only one sign for the two sibilants which were afterwards known as Sin and Shin and distinguished by a diacritical point (jy, y). In this case the distinction of sound must have existed from the beginning (as is proved by comparative philology), and became even more marked in later times ; we may therefore assume that it existed likewise in the intermediate period, when the alphabet was invented. Since the inventors of the alphabet ignored this distinction, they mav have ignored others also, and accordingly the fact that the ancient Semitic character does not discriminate between certain sounds which are expressed by different letters in Arabic (e.g., [arabic letter goes here] and [arabic letter goes here], [arabic letter goes here] and [arabic letter goes here]) is no proof that the alphabet originated among a people who in pronunciation assimilated these sounds to one another.

1 De Rouge, Memoire sur l'origine egyptienne de l'alphabet phenicien (Paris, 1874); Maspero, Hist, ancienne des peuples de l'orient (5) 745 (Paris, 1893).

2 Deecke in ZDMG [1877] 31:102-116.

3 Wi. Gesch. Isr. (1895) 1:125-126.

4 The reasons which make it necessary to suspend our judgment on this question are well pointed out by Lidzbarski in his Handbuch der nordsem. Epigraphik [1898], 1:173+

5 See DHM Die altsemitischen Inschriften von Sendschirli (Vienna, 1893), and cp ARAMAIC LANGUAGE, 2.

3. Antiquity.[edit]

Of all known inscriptions in the Semitic character the oldest which can be dated with certainty, namely the inscription of Mesha king of Moab, belongs to the earlier half of the ninth century B.C. See MKSHA. The inscription of Panammu, king of Ya'di, in the extreme N. of Syria, appears to have been set up about the beginning of the eighth century ; it is written in a peculiar Aramaic dialect. 5 Some Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions are perhaps rather older than these two ; but there is no clear evidence to show how long before the ninth century the Semitic alphabet was invented. Noldeke has observed that the style of the inscription of Mesha seems to imply the existence of a historical literature among the Moabites of the period, and what we know of the Moabites would lead us to suppose that their civilisation was decidedly less advanced than that of their neighbours to the W. Thus we may conclude with certainty that at the time of Mesha the Semitic alphabet was not a very recent invention. On the other hand, the fact that in the ninth century B.C. the shapes of the letters were almost identical in regions so far apart as Moab and Ya'di does not favour the view that the alphabet had been for many centuries in common use, for in that case local types would have tended to diverge more widely, as is shown by the later history of Semitic writing. More over, the tablets discovered at Tell-el-Amarna in 1887 prove that about 1400 B.C. the Canaanite princes conducted their official correspondence with the Egyptian court in the Babylonian language and character. It would be very rash to conclude from this that the cuneiform character was then commonly employed by the natives of Canaan, for documents written in a foreign language and in an extremely difficult character can have been intelligible only to a small class of professional scribes, most of them, perhaps, slaves imported from other countries. 1 But it is evident that if the Canaanite princes employed, in their correspondence with Egypt, a language which was neither that of Canaan nor that of Egypt, we may with some plausibility conjecture that the Canaanites at that period had no writing of their own.

The OT does not supply us with the means of discovering how or when the alphabet became known to the Israelites. In Genesis, as has often been remarked, there is no allusion to writing of any kind, whereas Moses is represented, even in the older parts of Exodus (JE), as practising the art (Ex. 24:4). But from this we cannot safely conclude more than that writing had been in use among the Israelites for some time before the period of the narrator, who probably lived in the ninth century B.C. Nor does Judg. 5:14 throw any light on the question ; whatever the phrase nab C2t? [ShBT ...] may mean, it cannot be explained as 'the pen of the scribe', since e3B> [ShBT] never has this sense either in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is remarkable that the ordinary Hebrew noun for 'writing', namely nap [SPR], from which nob [SPR - with neqqudoth] 'a scribe' is derived, has no etymological connection with any of the verbs which signify 'to write' (nro, ppn, cc i). and this fact tends to support the theory that neo [SPR] is a foreign word ; whether it was borrowed from the Assyrian, as some scholars suppose, is uncertain.

The name of the old Canaanite city nsavv-.p [kirjath-sepher] (Josh. 15:15-16, Judg. 1:11-12) might suggest that the word nEB [SPR], in the sense of writing, was known already to the Canaanites before the Israelite invasion; but since the root 123 [SPR] {2} has a variety of meanings (in Hebrew 'to count', 'to relate', in Aramaic 'to shave the hair'), it is altogether illegitimate to found any argument upon the name in question. Cp KIRJATH-SEPHER.

1 Even in Babylonia itself, where the language of the Tell-el-Amarna tablets was actually spoken, the knowledge of the cuneiform character was, in all probability, confined to a small proportion of the inhabitants.

2 It is possible that HSD [sepher] in -iBp-rrip [kirjath-sepher] has no connection with the Heb. root 133 [SPR], since Phoen. Q [S] may correspond to Heb. j [Z], e.g., Phoen. -,;D = Heb. 137. The existence of a root net" [ZPR] may be inferred from the name of the place |"ISI (tJIBI, 'to Ziphron', Nu. 34:9).

3 See Dr. TBS pp. 14-17.

4. Types.[edit]

In the days of the later kings of Judah, the art of writing must have been very extensively employed, to judge by the frequent allusions to it in the Prophets especially Isaiah. The oldest extant specimens of Israelite writing, namely the Siloam inscription 3 and a number of engraved seals and gems, seem to belong to this period. Here the shapes of the letters closely resemble those in the inscription of king Mesha 1. One of the oldest Phoenician inscriptions, that which is found on the fragments of a bronze bowl dedicated to the Baal of Lebanon (CIS 1. no. 5, see PHOENICIA, 18), exhibits much the same type. But the ordinary Phoenician writing has a decidedly more modern appearance ; the down-strokes become elongated, so as to present to the eye a series of parallel lines, and the letters thus acquire an air of uniformity which is lacking in the older style. Another type is offered by the Aramaic inscriptions and papyri of the Persian and Macedonian period. The distinctive feature of these is that certain letters (3, i [D], y [A], -i [R]) have open tops, as though their upper portion had been cut off. A further development of this Aramaic writing appears in the Nabataean and Palmyrene inscriptions, of the first century B.C. and onwards, which are specially remark able for their frequent ligatures or joining of the letters, a feature common to all the later styles of Aramaic writing in use among Christians. As the Aramaic language gradually superseded Hebrew and the kindred dialects spoken in Palestine, the Aramaic letters became more and more familiar to the Jews. The coins of the Hasmonaean dynasty and those struck during the two Jewish revolts (66-70 and 132-135 A.D. ) bear legends in the old Hebrew character; but some Jewish inscriptions of about the time of Christ are in the Aramaic writing, though the language is Hebrew. The particular variety of the Aramaic character which came into use at this period was called by the Jews kethab merubba (> 3ip ana), 'square writing', or kethab ashshuri (n?B ! N ana), 'Assyrian writing', a name probably due to the fact that it was employed by the peoples of NE. Syria. One of the most ancient specimens of the square writing is the inscription over the sepulchre of the Bene Hezir (vm 33.). a Jewish family, near Jerusalem; 1 the character bears much resemblance to the Nabataean, but the lines are straighter and the ligatures less frequent. In the fully developed form of the square character the ligatures disappear altogether. There is reason to believe that at the time when the text of the OT was definitely fixed - i.e. , about the beginning of the second century after Christ - the square character was generally, if not invariably, employed in MSS of the OT. 2 Since that period it has continued in use among the Jews with very little modification. Strangely enough, the Samaritans alone remained faithful to the old Hebrew writing, though in their attempt to adorn it they gave it a somewhat fantastic appearance. 3

1 See Chwolson, Corpus Inscr. Heb. no. 6 (St. Petersburg, 1882).

2 In the recently discovered fragments of Aquila s Greek translation of the OT (ed. F. C. Burkitt, Cambridge, 1897) the Divine name y-h-w-h is written in a corrupt form of the old Hebrew alphabet, not, as we might have expected, in the square character. Rut it does not necessarily follow that the Hebrew MSS used by Aquila were written in the old alphabet throughout: the Divine Name, which, it must be remembered, was not pronounced by the reader, may still have been written in the ancient style after the rest of the text had been modernised.

3 Tables showing the forms of the letters used by the N. Semitic nations at different periods are found in Stade's Lehrbuch der hebraischen Grammatik (1879) and Noldeke's Kurzgefassze syrische Grammatik (1880, (2) 1898), but far fuller information may be obtained from the magnificent table by Euting in Chwolson's Corpus Inscr. Heb. See also P. Berger, Histoire de l'ecriture dans l'antiquiti (Paris, 1891).

At a period which it is impossible to determine accurately, but in any case several centuries before the Christian era, the Semitic alphabet was introduced into Arabia and employed for writing various Arabian dialects, as is proved by many inscriptions which have been discovered in that country. Some of these were, until lately, known by the incorrect name Himyaritic. The alphabet in which they are written is evidently derived from that of the northern Semites ; but it contains several additional consonants, invented for the purpose of expressing certain Arabic sounds which were not represented in the older Semitic writing. The so-called Himyaritic inscriptions fall into two classes, according to dialect those in Sabaean and those in Minaean. Both dialects seem to have been spoken in S. Arabia at about the same period, and to have been carried northwards by mercantile colonists. Among these inscriptions there are very few of which the date can be ascertained even approximately. The theory of Glaser, Hommel, Sayce, and others, that the Minoean inscriptions are of enormous antiquity and that the latest of them were set up about 1000 B.C., has been completely overthrown by the discovery of a Minaean inscription which is dated from 'the twenty-second year of king Ptolemy', so that it cannot be older than the third century B.C. {1} The dialect of the so-called Thamudaean 2 inscriptions, recently discovered at Al-Ula, about 150 mi. NNW. of Medina, differs greatly both from the Sabaean and the Minaean ; but the writing is nearly the same. Whether D. H. Muller be right in considering the Thamudaean character an earlier form of the Sabaean is uncertain. By the beginning of the seventh century of our era both the Thamudaean and the Sabaean writing had become obsolete in Arabia, for the alphabet employed by the Arabs at that time - the parent of the Arabic character now in use - was derived from the Nabataean. In Eastern Africa, however, the Sabaean alphabet left a descendant, namely the very peculiar character known as the Aethiopic.

5. Names of the letters.[edit]

The names by which the letters of the alphabet were known among the Jews appear for the first time in the LXX text of Lam. 1-4. Here the MSS, it is true, vary to a considerable extent ; but there can be no doubt that the names are substantially identical with those which were used by the Jews in the Middle Ages. It would seem, however, that in very early times certain of these names were pronounced otherwise, since the names of the Greek letters, which were borrowed from the Phoenicians, sometimes diverge notably from the ordinary Jewish forms ; thus rdyii/ua [gamma] (for Ta/uXa [gamla]) and Pi2> [rho] (cp Heb. pjo [rosh], 'head') appear to have a more primitive vocalisation than ^D J (LXX yi/j.e\ [gimel] or yi/J.\ [giml]) and o-\ (LXX pijxs [reches] or pys [res]). Accordingly the fact that tri [rish] is not a Hebrew but an Aramaic form cannot be regarded as proving anything with respect to the ultimate origin of the names. That the names were liable to undergo great change in various times and places is shown, moreover, by the Aethiopic alphabet, in which several of the names are quite different. We must not therefore be surprised to find that among the Jewish names of the letters there are some of which the meaning is altogether obscure, namely, nn [H'], j<i [ZYZ], rrn [THYTH], n D [TYTH], ns. i [TsDY], ipi [QVP], and IB [].

6. Order of the alphabet.[edit]

The order in which the letters were arranged is shown by the acrostich poems in the OT (Pss. 25, 34, 37, 111-112, 119, 145, Prov. 31:10-31, Lam. 1). In Lam. 2-4 the order is slightly different, since B [P] precedes y [A]. {3} Among the Phoenicians the arrangement of the letters seems to have been the same as among the Jews, for the Greek alphabet in its primitive form corresponded to the Hebrew. By what principle the order was originally fixed it is impossible to discover.

1 See the papers by DHM in the Vienna Oriental Journ. (Die Wiener Zeitschr. fir die Kunde des Morgenlandes) 8:1-10, 8:161-166 (1894).

2 Named after the Thamud (Gk. oi BafiouSrji oO [oi thamoudenoi], an Arabian tribe who inhabited those parts about the fourth century after Christ. The authors of these inscriptions, however, call themselves not Thamud, but Lihyan (j <n9) ; see DHM Epig. Denk. aus Arabien (Vienna, 1889).

3 See LAMENTATIONS.

7. Direction of the writing, punctuation, etc.[edit]

Ancient inscriptions in the Semitic alphabet, like the oldest inscriptions in Greek, are written from right to left. The sole exceptions to this rule are found among the Sabaean inscriptions, a few of which are written j3ovffTpo<f>r)d6vie [boustrophedon], - i.e., in lines running alternately from right to left and from left to right, a fashion common among the Greeks in the sixth century B.C. {1} In the inscription of King Mesha a dot is placed after each word and a vertical stroke at the end of each sentence. Similar dots are found in the Siloam inscription and in some others; but whether they were used by ordinary Hebrew writers may be doubted. In any case the OT contains very many textual corruptions which are due simply to wrong divisions of words. 2 Such mistakes were greatly facilitated by the absence of special forms for final letters, like those used in the writing of the later Jews, Syrians, and Arabs. In Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic inscriptions a line frequently ends in the middle of a word; but in the later Jewish style this is not allowed, and in order to fill up a line the scribes are accustomed to 'expand' certain letters, especially x ['], n [H], S [L], n [Th], and n [M or S].

8. Orthography.[edit]

The letters of the Semitic alphabet were originally used as consonants only, the vowels being unexpressed. Such a system must, of course, give rise to endless ambiguities, for in the Semitic languages some of the most important grammatical distinctions (e.g. , the difference between an active and a passive verb) often depend solely on the vowels. The reason which led the Semites to content themselves with this imperfect method seems to have been that writing was at first employed only for short and well-known formulae, such as votive inscriptions, funereal inscriptions, and the like, not for literary works properly so-called. At length certain of the consonants (K ['], n [H], t [V], and > [Y]) came to be used also as vowels ; but this modification was introduced very slowly. In Phoenician inscriptions the vowels are never expressed save in a few cases at the end of a word. In the inscription of King Mesha and the Siloam inscription the vowel-letters are inserted somewhat more freely, but very much less freely than in the present text of the OT. 3 Among the Israelites, before the exile, the general rule seems to have been that no vowels were expressed in writing except the diphthongs au and ai (which were represented by i [V] and > [Y] respectively), and most of the long vowels at the end of words. The use of vowel letters for u, o, and i in the middle of words - which is frequent in the MT - apparently came into fashion at a very late period, as a careful examination of LXX shows. 4 The orthography of the present Jewish OT is probably the result of a revision (or of several revisions) by the scribes, for in all parts of the OT the use of the vowel-letters (or, as they are often called, matres lectionis) is approximately the same, that is to say, the oldest books do not, in this respect, differ materially from the latest. But though we find a general uniformity of spelling throughout the whole of the OT, there are numberless inconsistencies in matters of detail, and it often happens that within the space of a few verses the same word is spelt in two or more different ways. In no case, therefore, have we any guarantee that the vowel-letters in our text go back to the time of the author, aad to base historical arguments on the spelling is quite illegitimate. 5 Even in the Middle Ages, long after the text had been fixed, there was still a considerable amount of divergence between the MSS as to the insertion of the vowel-letters in particular passages. 1 In MSS of the Mishnah and other post-biblical Jewish writings, the vowel-letters are employed much more frequently than in the OT ; thus l and - often stand for the short vowels // and I, which is very rarely the case in copies of the OT.

1 The Aethiopic writing, as is well known, always runs from left to right; the oldest extant specimens of this writing, namely, two inscriptions at Aksum in Abyssinia, probably belong to the sixth century after Christ.

2 See Dr. TBS 30-32.

3 Thus the Siloam inscription has BK ['Sh] (thrice) for C* X ['YSh], and nasnn (twice) for traxnn.

4 Dr. TBS p. 33-34. It must be remembered that many words which the later Jews pronounced with o or u originally had the diphthong ai. Thus when we find -ny and N!>10 " l ^. e Siloam inscription, we ere not to reckon these as cases in which O was expressed by i [V].

5 Thus the well-known fact that the form Kin [HV'] is sometimes employed in MT instead of the fem. nn [HY'] proves nothing as to the usage of the ancient Hebrew, since the i [V] in this case was probably inserted by late scribes (cp Dr. Dent. Introd. p. 88). In Moabite the masc. form is written xn [H'], and in Phoenician inscriptions we find n [H'] for masc. and fem. alike, the pronunciation of course varying according to the gender.

9. Vowel points, etc.[edit]

Though the insertion of vowel - letters doubtless excluded certain ambiguities, the writing was still very far from being an adequate representation of the language. Not only many of the vowels but also the doubling of consonants and other important phonetic distinctions remained unexpressed. At length, several centuries after the Christian era, systematic efforts were made by the Jews, the Syrians, and the Arabs to remove this practical inconvenience. It cannot be a mere accident that among all three nations the introduction of the so-called vowel-points took place about the same period; but how and where the idea originated is quite uncertain. As early as the fifth century after Christ Syrian scribes had adopted the practice of distinguishing certain words, which, though spelt alike, were pronounced differently, by means of a dot placed above or below; and it has been conjectured by Ewald and others that this was the origin both of the Syrian and of the Jewish systems of vocalisation. In any case, it would seem that at the beginning of the fifth century the vowel-points were unknown to the Jews, and that by the end of the eighth century they had been in use for some time. The Jewish scholars who introduced these signs into the text of the OT are commonly known as the Massoretes - i.e. , traditionalists, from the late Heb. word massoreth (rnec), 'tradition'. Respecting their names and dates history is altogether silent. Though their work was of enormous importance, it must be remembered that among the Jews, as among the Syrians and Arabs, the vowel-points have never been regarded as an essential part of the writing ; in particular the MSS of the Law and the Prophets, from which lessons were read in the synagogues, appear to have been generally, if not always, written without points, down to the present day. Those MSS of the Hebrew OT which are pointed fall into two principal classes, according to the method of vocalisation employed. The great majority exhibit the so-called Palestinian 2 system, whilst others, of which the best-known example is the St. Petersburg Codex of the Prophets written in 916 A.D. (published in facsimile by Strack in 1876), have the Babylonian (or superlinear) vowel-points. These two systems possess so much in common that they must necessarily be derived from the same original ; but the precise relationship between them is still disputed. Both represent a very late stage in the pronunciation of the Hebrew language, or rather they express the language, not as it was actually spoken, but as it was chanted in the synagogues of the period. 3 The most important difference between the Palestinian and the Babylonian systems is, that the Palestinian alone has a special sign for the short vowel e (Seghol). The Babylonian system underwent considerable change in course of time, as is shown by the different forms which it assumes in our MSS; but it was ignored altogether by the great Jewish commentators and grammarians of the Middle Ages, and at length sank into oblivion, until it became known to European Hebraists in the nineteenth century.

1 See, e.g., Co. Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel, 1886, p. 7.

2 Also called Tiberian, from the fact that the city of Tiberias was one of the principal seats of Jewish learning from the second century onwards.

3 The pronunciation of Hebrew words given in the NT and other Greek sources is often more primitive than the pronunciation expressed by the vowel-points. It should also be noticed that the consonant text and the vocalisation are frequently at variance with one another, since the former presupposes a more ancient pronunciation than the latter. Thus in the very first word of the Hebrew OT, n"f n.3 [BR'ShYTh], the X ['] must originally have been pronounced as a consonant, but is treated by the Massoretes as mute.

Both the Palestinian and the Babylonian systems of vocalisation are combined with an extremely elaborate system of accents, which were intended to indicate not only the place of the accent in individual words, but also the musical intonation adopted in chanting, and hence the greater or less degree of connection between the different parts of sentences. 1 A special method of accentuation is employed in the poetical books of the OT - i.e., Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. 2 It is scarcely necessary to observe that for us the value of the accents consists in the light which they throw, not upon the real meaning of the text, but upon the manner in which the text was understood by the Massoretes.

A. A. B.

1 As to the points in which the Babylonian accentuation differs from the Palestinian, see Wickes Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twenty-one so-called Prose Books of the OT, Oxford, 1887, pp. 142-150. It should be mentioned that Dr. Wickes regards the term 'Babylonian' as a misnomer.

2 See Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Three so-called Poetical Books, Oxford, 1881.

XANTHICUS[edit]

(5AN9IKOC [xanthicos] [AV]), 2 Macc. 11:30, 11:33, 11:38. See MONTH.

XERXES[edit]

(L TllETIg), Esth. 1:1 RVmg, EV AHASUERUS (q.v. )

YARN[edit]

See LINEN, 1, WEAVING, and on 2 S. 17:27-28 [ROGELIM] see BED, 3.

1. pt2N, 'etun, Prov. 7:16 RV. See LINEN, 1a.

2. Ezek. 27:19 RV ("?M2). See UZAL.

3. niJJO, mikweh, 1 K. 10:28 AV. See CHARIOT, 5, n. 3, WEAVING, 2.

YEAR[edit]

(H3K*, shanah). Day, month, and year are all indicated by nature itself as means for the measurement of time. These three units are quite independent, however, and stand in no direct or simple relationship to each other, and wherever an artificial reduction of the larger unit to terms of either of the two smaller is attempted in the absence of exact astronomical knowledge, inaccuracies and dislocations become inevitable. These are not so great when the largest of the three units - the year - is measured in terms of the smallest - the day ; but they become serious when the middle unit - the month - is taken as the basis for establishing a ratio.

1. In Egypt.[edit]

The former course (making the day the unit) was taken by the Egyptians ; they had observed that after about 365 days the sun returns to the same position in the celestial sphere, and accordingly fixed their year as being 365 days. They altogether left out of account any reference to the course of the moon, although some reminiscence of it may be preserved in their division of the year into twelve equal parts of thirty days each, to which were added the five remaining days as supernumerary (the so-called epagomenai). Even thus, however, it was an artificial product that had been manufactured from the natural year which contains 5 hours 48 minutes and 48 seconds more than 365 complete days; and the Egyptian year, which on every fourth anniversary began a day too soon, was still a vague year, although it was only after the lapse of 1461 Egyptian years - a so-called Sothis period (see CHRONOLOGY, 19) - that the difference amounted to a year too many.

2. In Islam.[edit]

The second course (making the month the unit) was chosen by Mohammed, whose intention in prohibiting the occasional insertion of an intercalary month was to frame a rational calendar, but who thereby only succeeded in creating another artificial product completely differing from the natural year, namely the so-called purely lunar year which with its twelve lunar months (354 to 355 days) annually begins the new year some ten or eleven days too soon.

3. In Israel.[edit]

The calendar of Israel and the Jews avoided both the extremes just indicated, which are the necessary consequences of a too exclusive regard either to the day or to the month in determining the length of the year. With the Israelites the method to be followed was decided by practice, unhampered by any dominating theory about the natural year. This of course did not exclude modifications as time advanced, and ultimately the modifications led in the case of the Jewish calendar to a product much more complicated than is exhibited either in the Egyptian or in the Mohammedan ; it has, however, this advantage over both, that the Hebrews, at least in their reckoning of the years, though not always in their delimitation of them, remained in agreement with the number of the natural years.

4. A solar year.[edit]

With the ancient Israelites, as probably at the outset with all peoples, the year was a solar one, that is to say, a natural year which was sufficiently defined for practical purposes by the regular recurrence of the seasons. To this also the Hebrew word for year seems to have reference ; for in n:B>, shanah, at least, as in fviavrbs [eniautos] [fr/os [enos], ecos [enos]], annus [annulus], jahr, year (cp Gk. yvpovv [gyroun]), it seems permissible to conjecture some sort of reference to a return to a starting-point, a repetition of the same circular course. The solar character of the Hebrew year, however, is demonstrated beyond all doubt by the ancient determinations of time according to the seasons of the year and the agricultural operations dependent on these. Thus, for example, the annually recurring harvest festival or feast of weeks, dated by the harvest (Ex. 23:16a, 34:22, Dt. 16:9), the feast of tabernacles, dated by the ingathering (Dt. 16:13). It is proved also by indications which clearly show that stated religious or political actions - dependent in fact on the period of the year - always occurred at the same time of the year. Thus for example the autumn festival falls at the end of the year (Ex. 23:16, 34:22) ; the going forth of the king to battle at the return of the year (2 S. 11:1, 1 K. 20:22, 20:26, 1 Ch. 20:1, 2 Ch. 36:10). Lastly it is shown by the ancient names of months which are unmistakably connected with the regular recurrence of phenomena of the seasons (see MONTH, 2).

6. Its length.[edit]

The length of the year was hardly so accurately determined as to render impossible all uncertainty in its measurement. Probably its limits to some extent depended on weather-conditions and the labours necessitated by these. At least, we have no indication from the earlier times which would point to any exact definition of the year by any precise number of days. Not till post-exilic time does P seem to betray acquaintance with the fact that the year consists of 365 days, when he so states the number of the years of Enoch's life (Gen. 5:23; see ENOCH, 6) or when he represents the Flood, which began on the seventeenth day of the second month, as coming to an end on the twenty-seventh day of thr second month of the following year (Gen. 7:11, 8:14). This last procedure is certainly to be taken as showing that, assuming as he did for primitive times an accurate dating according to lunar months of which twelve made an ordinary year of 355 days, he wished by adding on ten days more to bring the year, thus reckoned, up to the full length of a natural year of 365 days. Whether also the feast of the New Year (for which we have evidence from the exilic period; Ezek. 40:1, cp Lev. 25:9), which was observed, not on the first but on the tenth day of the seventh month, is based on a similar reckoning, can hardly be made out. At all events, whatever may have been the freedom allowed in the measurement of any particular year, there are certain facts which show that the real length of the actual year was by no means altogether obscure even in the pre-exilic period.

6. Beginning.[edit]

According to the reckoning in use then (in the pre-exilic period) the change of the year took place in autumn, when all the fruits of the earth had been gathered in and the former rain (rnia, moreh) was preparing the fields for fresh tillage and a renewal of the yearly cycle. The autumn festival, or feast of the ingathering (fj pun in, hag ha'asiph), with which the yearly round of feasts was closed, was 'observed at the outgoing of the year' (flJB n riNsa, betseth hashshanah - Ex. 23:16) or 'at the year's revolution' (rro n nsipn, tekuphath hashshanah - Ex. 34:22). These definitions of the oldest legislation are so clear and distinct as to make further proof unnecessary.

If any further proof were requisite, it might be urged that the passover could not have been observed in accordance with the precept of the newly-found law unless the new year was in autumn in the eighteenth year of Josiah (2 K. 23:23 ; cp 22:3), and that on no other assumption can the fourth year of Jehoiakim be made to synchronise with the first year of Nebuchadrezzar (Jer. 25:1) and with the year of the battle of Carchemish (Jer. 46:2). Such inferential arguments are needless. Besides, the text of these passages (cp LXX) is not in a satisfactory condition.

It is wholly unwarranted, however, to regard the autumn as marking the change of the economic year, and to set over against this, as the ordinary calendar year, a civil year that had its commencement in spring. There is absolutely no evidence for any such system of double accounts before the exile.

The expression 'at the return of the year' (.tyj : n j-QIC flS ; 2 S. 11:1, 1 K. 20:22, 20:26), which is used more than once with reference to campaigns beginning in spring, does not speak of a beginning of the year, but is couched in such general terms as to contain a definite date only when one knows that the spring is the time for campaigns to begin, and in itself means nothing more than 'in the following year'.

There is all the less reason for this postulating of a beginning of the year in spring - in the interests of the late P (Ex. 12:2), and in contradiction to the terms of the oldest legislation (Ex. 23:16, 34:22) - inasmuch as the period of the exile itself bears witness to the observance of the New Year festival in autumn, and in the end the old custom once more triumphed over the later innovation which for a time had held the year to begin in spring. See NEW YEAR, i.

7. Relation of year to months.[edit]

The question as to the relation of the months to the year is more difficult. For the earlier ages it is impossible to say anything with certainty. Probably the months and the years simply ran a parallel course, without any attempt being made to fix a point of coincidence at which the year and the monthly cycle might take a common beginning. The fact that in the exile the New Year festival was held on the tenth day of a month without any sense of strangeness (Ezek. 40:1, cp Lev. 25:9) seems to point to this. When necessity arose, doubtless no difficulty was felt in making a thirteenth month follow upon the ordinary twelve within the same year; but there was not as yet any definite rule, and the text of 1 K. 4:7-20, which speaks of the division of Solomon's kingdom into twelve districts, each of which was called upon to maintain the expenses of the royal household for a month, has unfortunately reached us in such an imperfect state of preservation that we are unable to see in it clear evidence of a year of twelve months; it is possible even that Judah may have been thought of as the thirteenth district, with this as its special privilege that it became liable to the tax only in intercalary months. In substance, then, what we are able to say is this: In the pre-exilic period it was natural years that regulated the chronology, the change of the year fell in autumn, and the months, which followed the moon, were allowed to take their own way, without concerning themselves much about the year.

8. Exilic changes.[edit]

As in so many other things, the exile brought profound changes into the Jewish Calendar. Away from their native soil, with which their worship had stood in such intimate connection - a connection which Deuteronomy indeed had already been recently seeking to sever - they were now all the readier to take over the Babylonian calendar, which they had learned to recognise as the more scientifically regulated one. This change announces itself in a new terminology for the months and in a transference of the beginning of the year. Down to the exile the months had been designated by their ancient names (so even in Deuteronomy) ; in the exile comes in the custom of distinguishing the months from each other by numbers, and also of placing the first month in spring (cp, to begin with, the exilic redactors of Jeremiah and Kings, Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah, then P and the final redactor of the Hexateuch (e.g., Dt. 1:3), and also Chronicles). In course of time even the foreign Babylonian names for the months began to come in ; but except in Ezra 6:15 (in an Aramaic passage) and in Neh. (1:1, 2:1, 6:15) their ordinal numbers are also at the same time given (so in Esther and in Macc. ). {1} The transference of the beginning of the year to the spring is already witnessed to by the numbering of the months beginning, as in the Babylonian Calendar, with the spring month ; but we have, besides, express evidence in the ordinance of P in Ex. 12:2 'This [the current, Passover] month shall be unto you the beginning of months : it shall be the first month of the year to you'. The evidence here supplied does not lose in weight even if the verse should prove to be due to a later editor. For in any case the change of the era is carried back to a divine command, given of old to Moses and Aaron while still in the land of Egypt. But this of itself proves that the Israelites had once made use of another era (that beginning in autumn), and that its place was taken by the spring era only at a later date.

In P's account of the deluge a further proof of this author's knowledge of the earlier employment of an autumn era is obtained, only if we hold ourselves shut up to the conclusion that he considered the flood to have begun in autumn. But in that case P has not only carried back the later designations of the months to that patriarchal period, but has also adapted these in academic fashion to the autumn era by designating, in accordance with this latter era, as the second month, that which by the spring era was the eighth (cp Gen. 7:11, 8:4-5, 8:13-14).

At what date this change came in cannot be gathered from the passage before us ; but the whole manner of P, which is to carry back all the ordinances of the post-exilic community to Moses, renders it probable that in this ordinance also we see the sanctioning of an innovation that had been introduced at the time of the exile, and the date of which admits of being definitely fixed by means of the new designations the months then received.

1 In Zech. 1:7, 7:1 the names of the months are a later insertion.

The memory of the older custom of beginning the year in autumn wns still vivid during the exile and took concrete shape in an ecclesiastical New Year's festival (Ezek. 40:1, Lev. 25:9, Nu. 29:1; cp Lev. 23:24). In this way from henceforward there was observed, alongside of the official civil New Year in spring, an ecclesiastical New Year in autumn, which was held by the ancient pre-exilic custom. The beginning of the civil year fell thus on the first day of the first month (or Nisan, corresponding to what had formerly been known as Abib). The ecclesiastical New Year on the other hand did not remain unaltered. At first it was, as already stated, observed according to Ezek. 40:1 (cp Lev. 25:9) on the tenth of the seventh month (Tishri); but afterwards it was transferred to the 1st of Tishri (Lev. 23:24, Nu. 29:1 [P]).

The day, in the passages last cited, indeed is called no longer fOB H C K"!, rosh hashshanah, as is the day of the new year in Ezek. 40:1, but nynR QVj, yom teru'ah, 'day of blowing of trumpets' (Nu. 29:1; cp ni VW ]i"l3 > zikron teru'ah, 'a memorial of blowing of trumpets', {1} Lev. 23:24); but Lev. 25:8+ leaves no room for doubt that the trumpet-blowing must be taken as the characteristic feature of the New Year's day, and that the exilic New Year festival had to give up its place to the day of atonement (D"1E3 CV, yom kippurim, Lev. 23:27-28.; cp NEW YEAR) now transferred to 10th of Tishri.

How the insertion of a thirteenth month which from time to time was necessary was arranged, we have no means of knowing, the OT being silent on the subject. The fact, however, that such insertion was actually made in order to keep the beginning of the year in approximate coincidence with the vernal equinox, does not admit of doubt; it was the practice of the Babylonians from whom the entire new calendar was borrowed.

9. Seleucidan calendar.[edit]

The arrangement thus made was not disturbed till long afterwards, and even then probably only on account of the Seleucidan calendar which made the beginning of the year in autumn. At the same time it remains a question whether any such alteration in the manner of reckoning time can be proved from 1 Macc., for there are two opposing views as to the interpretation of the dates there given. Wellhausen (IJG 208) maintains that in 1 Macc. also the Seleucidan autumnal era is followed. On the other side range themselves, amongst others, Cornill (Die siebzig Jahrwochcn Daniels, 20-21, 1889) and Schurer with convincing reasons for concluding that 1 Macc. in its dates follows the Babylonian vernal era taken over by the Jews during the exile.

They urge:

  • (1) the dates would not fit the events to which they are assigned, if the Seleucidan era be assumed. To take a simple example, the events related in 1 Macc. 10:1-21 imperatively demand a longer space than the fourteen days which are

all that can be given them on the view adopted by Wellhausen.

  • (2) The designation of the months by ordinal numbers, of which the first is given to the month that occurs in spring, would be very strange if the year were held to begin in autumn, for in that case the seventh to the twelfth month of a given year would fall in point of time before the first to the sixth of the same year (cp i Macc. 4:52 where the ninth month is Chislev, 10:21 where the seventh is the month of the feast of tabernacles [Tishri], and 16:14 where the eleventh month is Shebat). 1
  • (3) Similar modifications of the Seleucidan era in accordance with the requirements of local calendars can be shown to haveoccurred elsewhere. In fact for the city of Damascus the use of exactly the same era can be proved (Schurer).


We may conclude that in the first century B.C. (as is to be inferred for the second at any rate from Est. 3:7) the official era began the year in the spring (on the 1st of Nisan); for it, accordingly, the spring of 312 B.C. marked the beginning of the first year of the Seleucidan era. N or is it necessary to assume any other mode of reckoning in 1 Macc., as a mere discrepancy about a single date is not reason enough for postulating a special era for the book.

When we come to the first century of our own era, however, the case is different. For Josephus confines the year that has its beginning in spring to religious affairs only; for buying and selling and all manner of secular business, on the other hand, the beginning of the year is in autumn (Ant. 1:3:3). {2} In full agreement with this are the regulations of the Mishnah which (Rosh hashshana, 1:1) distinguishes four commencements of the year, of which the 1st of Elul, the new year for the tithing of cattle, and the 1st of Shebat, the new year for the fruit of fruit-trees, may be left out of account, as being merely the terms with reference to which accurate reckoning of sacred dues was fixed. What is important to notice here is that the 1st of Nisan is there given as the new year for kings and for the sacred feasts (that is, as in Josephus, for religious affairs), whilst the 1st of Tishri is the new year for the years, for the Sabbatical years, for the years of Jubilee, for tree-plantings and vegetables (and so for the enumeration of the years).

1 If in the present text of Neh. 1:1:, 2:1i, Chislev precedes Nisan of the same year (the year that is described as the twentieth) the case is somewhat different from that referred to in the text, their respective designations as 'the ninth' and 'the first' month being avoided. But too much stress ought not to be laid upon these passages, inasmuch as in Neh. 1:1 the name of the king is not given where certainly it might have been expected, and thus the accuracy of the tradition as a whole becomes open to question.

2 The passage runs:

'But Moses appointed Nisan which is Xanthicus as the first month for their festivals, leading forth the Hebrews from Egypt in this month; he also made the year to begin from it as regards all the solemnities of divine worship, though as to buying and selling and all other affairs he preserved the ancient order'
(Mu>u<nr)s 6e rov Ni<ra>, os e<rn Eac#i/c6s, piTJra. irpwroi firi TOUS eoprais aipure Kara TOVTOV <f Aiyiin-rou TOVS K/Jpatou? npoayayiiii . OVTOS avrtu *cat Trpb? a7ra<ras ras eis TO 9eiov Ti|uas ^px 61 - f" 1 nevroi. ye Trpacrec? (cai <oi>os KOJ. TJJV aAAtji 5cOlKTJ<7ll/ TQV 7TptUTOI> KO(T^OV Oie^uAae).

Hence the rabbinical formula explains itself:

'Nisan is the first of the months of the year, but Tishri is the beginning of the year'. 1

From that day to the present the 1st of Tishri has continued to be New Year's Day, and thus it is correct to say that the reckoning of the year according to the vernal era, which was adopted by the Jews in the exile from the Babylonians and afterwards received the sanction of P, was only an episode - a large one it is true, from the sixth to the last century B.C. - in the history of the Hebrew and Jewish Calendar.

Throughout all these changes the year had remained solar. Owing to the very absence of any definite inflexible rule, 2 - which, had it existed in the early times, must necessarily have been incomplete and inaccurate - for the insertion of the intercalary months, the year was saved from becoming a vague year. This great advantage was purchased, it is true, at some cost ; it made the year of variable length, according as a month had been inserted or not, and according to the number of months of twenty-nine days and thirty days respectively contained in it; 3 and the 1st of Nisan, like New Year's Day, the 1st of Tishri, did not always occur at precisely the same point of time but varied within a limited period, just as the yearly Christian festivals now (Easter, Ascension, Whitsunday) are not fixed but movable feasts.

The same peculiarities are still displayed by the Jewish year even after the adoption of a special rule for intercalation. Even at as late a date as the beginning of the Christian era it was the part of the Sanhedrin in each individual case to decide on the ground of direct observation whether the insertion of a thirteenth month was required or not, just as also the visibility of the crescent moon decided whether or not the month had ended on the twenty-ninth day. The intercalary month was introduced after Adar and before Nisan, and the decision as to the insertion (~)O>) of a month and the conversion of the year into an intercalary year (n~n>2 "UC ), 4 was effected in the course of the year itself, often not till the month Adar, and even then sometimes not till after the feast of Purim, - in other words hardly fourteen days before the beginning of the intercalary month, which also bore the name of Adar (TIKI, 3B ; ri "HX, or I, 3~)O&B ; ri ")

Jewish tradition hands down a number of criteria whereby to decide whether a month requires to be inserted or not ; but in all cases the decisive consideration is this, that the passover, which has to be celebrated at full moon in Nisan (14th Nisan), must not come before the vernal equinox, but must be celebrated when the sun is in Aries (fv Kpiip TOV ijXiov KatfeoTtDros [en krioo tou eliou kathestootos]; Jos. Ant. 3:10:5). Of course the Jews of that period had arrived by practice, if they had not already learned it from the Greeks who had long been acquainted with the eight-years cycle' (the o/craerrjpts [oktaeteris]), at the generalisation that, broadly speaking, an intercalary month became necessary thrice every eight years. But ultimately, when regulating their calendar in the fourth century, they adopted from the Greeks the nineteen-years' cycle (frvfaKaideKaerTipis [enneakaidekaeteris]), dating from the Athenian astronomer Meton in the fifth century B.C., in accordance with which seven out of every nineteen years (the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17yth, and 19th) require an intercalary month. When this rule is followed, the difference in nineteen years amounts only to a little over two hours. The Jews of the present day still adhere to this Metonic calendar.

Alongside of the division of the year into months, immemorial usage sanctioned a division by the seasons also, and events were dated in accordance with the characteristic occupations of the successive periods of the year (thus, barley harvest in 2 S. 21:9, Ruth 1:22, Judith 8:2; wheat harvest Gen. 30:14, Judg. 15:1, Ruth 2:23 ; the ingathering of green crops, Am. 7:1 [see Wellh. ad loc.] the ripening of the earliest clusters of grapes, Nu. 13:20).

Usually only two seasons of the year were formally distinguished - 'summer and winter' [autumn] ( r |"irr) J"J3, Gen. 8:22, Ps. 74:17, Zech. 14:8, cp Is. 18:6) or 'winter and harvest time' (TSJ31 r\-\h, Am. 3:15, Prov. 20:4), or 'cold and heat' Op Qni, Gen. 8:22), or 'sowing and reaping' P SJJ^ jn.T> Gen. 8:22), or 'ploughing and reaping' (Ti pl B^ in, Gen. 45:6, Ex. 34:21). Winter also (WD, Cant. 2:11) is specially mentioned.

1 rue rt rve jo KI.I ".e-m n:ern srin 1 ? prm tein jo*:-

2 No such rule can be found, as Klostermrmn has supposed, in the institution of the year of jubilee. As any evidence that the precepts regarding it were ever observed is wholly wanting. the best theory - supposing, what is not very probable, that yobel means intercalation - is that the idea was, by means of an artificial expedient, introduced as an afterthought, to bring into conformity with the solar year the old year which was erroneously assumed to have been lunar. What P has to tell about the year of jubilee is learned theory merely, that was never realised in practice.

3 The rule, naturally, was that each year ought to have six months of twenty-nine days and six months of thirty days (cp Bk. of Enoch 78:15-16); it is, however, assumed to be possible, in the Mishnah ('Arakhin 22) that a year may have as few as four months, or on the other hand as many as eight months, of thirty days each. The length of the year thus varied from 352 to 356 days, an intercalary year from 382 to 386 days.

4 An ordinary year was called ntJ E fl H)ff.

10. Bibliography.[edit]

Cp especially Dillmann's dissertation on the calendar (see MONTH, end), We. Prol. 112-114, Reste, 90-91, IJG, passim; Klo. Pentateuch, 419-447 ('Ueber die kalendarische Bedeutung des Jobel-jahres'); Schurer, GJV 1:26-33 ((3) 1:32-40), and 1:623-634 ((3) 1:745-760); KAT (3), 325-326, and the chronological treatises, especially that of Ideler, referred to under CHRONOLOGY, 85.

K. M.

YELLOW[edit]

For (1) nh> , tsahob, Lev. 13:30, 13:32. see COLOURS, 7; and

for (2) p^pT. yerakrak, Ps. 68:13, see COLOURS, 11 and cp 5.

YOKE[edit]

(tty), 1 S. 6:7. See AGRICULTURE, 4.


ZAANAIM, THE PLAIN OF[edit]

AV, with Zaanannim in mg. and RV text - mg. BEZAANANNIM [q.v.] (C 3V^3 }"l7K [Kt.], C"331 S3 X [Kr.], translated Tr\eovKTOvvT<i>v [pleonektountoon] [B], avairavonevtav [anapayomenoon] [AL], ^J.^-V _2> [Pesh.], Sennim [Vg.]).

The nomadic journeys of Heber the Kenite extended to 'the plain of Zaanaim', or - the only correct rendering so far as p\st [elon] is concerned - 'the oak (or, sacred tree?) of Bezaanannim', Judg. 4:11 (cp MOREH, THE PLAIN OF). It is against AV's interpretation that according to rule <Hebrew text> ('oak') would require the article; on the other hand, such a name as BEZAANANNIM (q.v.} is against all analogy. See Crit. Bib.

T. K. C.

ZAANAN[edit]

(|3XV), Mi. 1:11 ; see ZENAN.

ZAANANNIM, THE OAK IN[edit]

( /ucoAa (cai /3ecre;u.ia> [mela kai besemiein] [B], |U.r)Awi/ K. 3<?crera.i/i/i [meloon kai besenanim] [A"], but (oAa/x o-eei ai etju [oolam seenaneim] [L], Pesh. vemen tsan'am [Pesh.] ; Saananim [Vg.]), RV Josh. 19:33 (also in Judg. 4:11); AV (Josh. l.c.). arbitrarily, '[from] Allon to Zaanannim', RVmg (ll.cc.) 'the oak (or terebinth) of Bezaanannim'; mentioned in the definition of the W. boundary of Naphtali, Josh. 19:33 (cp ADAMI-NEKEB). See BEZAANANNIM.

ZAAVAN[edit]

(p T ltt, in Sam. }L")T ; zoyKAM [zoukam] [BADEL]), b. Ezer, b. Seir the Horite, Gen. 36:27 ; 1 Ch. 142 (AV ZAVAN ; &ZOYK&N [azoukan] [A], Z&Y&N [zauan] [L])

ZABAD[edit]

("QT, abbrev. for -inna| ; see NAMES, 50, ZEBADIAH ; zAB<\A [zabad] [XAL]).

1. A Judahite, descended from the Egyptian or Misrite JARHA (q.v), 1 Ch. 2:36-37 (fa/3e5 [zabed] [BA]). Under the designation 'Zabad ben Ahlai' he appears in 1 Ch. 11:41 as the first of the sixteen additional names in the Chronicler's list of David's heroes, as compared with 2 S. 23:8-39 (fa/3er [zabet] [BX], fa/3ar [zabat] [A]). See AHLAI, and note that "x, like 7m , occurs [not] as a corruption of Sven'"1v (Che.). Perhaps "va in v. 20 should be -137. A southern clan-name is expected (see SHUTHELAH).

2. Mentioned among the b'ne EPHRAIM (section 12) 1 Ch. 7:21 (fa,3e5 [zabed] [BA], om. L ?).

3. One of the assassins who slew Joash (2 Ch. 24:26 ; fajSeX [zabel] [B], fa/3e0 [zabeth] [A], fa/3a0 [zabath] [L]) ; see JOZACHAR and JEHOZABAD.

4-6. In list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i. 5 end), viz.

  • 4. One of the b'ne ZATTU (q.v.) Ezra 10:27 (a/3<xSaj3 [zabadab] [B]) = 1 Esd. 9:28 SABATUS, RV SABATHUS (<ra/3a0os [sabathos] [BA]).
  • 5. One of the b'ne HASHUM, Ezra 10:33 (a/3eA [zabel] [BX], fa/Sfiai [zabdai] [L]) = 1 Esd. 9:33 BANNAIA, RV SABANNEUS (<ra/3a i/aious [sabannaious] [B], ^ar. [bannaious] [A], a/3Sia [zabdia] [L]).
  • 6. One of the b'ne NEBO (q.v.) Ezra 10:43 (o-eSe^ [sedem] [BX] om. A) = 1 Esd.9:33, Zabadaias, RV Zabadeas

( s aMa S [zabadaious [BA]).

ZABADEANS[edit]

RV Zabadaeans, an Arabian tribe, living near Damascus, which was attacked and spoiled by Jonathan (1 Mace. 12:51 ; z&BaAiMOYC [VA], -eoyc [N] ; sUbidtive [Pesh.]). Josephus (Ant. 13:5:10), by a very natural confusion, calls them Nabataeans. In the Megillath Ta'anith, 33, it is said that on the seventeenth day of Adar the heathen rose up against the remnant of the scribes, in the city of Chalchis and N-QT n 3 (in J. Taa>ii~f/i,2i3, pirn) ; but there was deliverance to the house of Israel. {1} This is referred to the incident in 1 Macc, by Derenbourg (Hist. Pal. 99-100) and Wellhausen (Phar. it. Sad. 58) ; but not by Schurer (GJV \ 187). Chalchis (c 1 p ?D, etc.) is the modern ^wyara/ about 7 mi. due E. of it is ez-Zebedani, a town and district 6.5 hrs. NW of Damascus on the way to Baalbek, and on the W. slope of the Anti-libanus (cp ABANA). It is therefore extremely probable that in the modern ez-Zebedani we have a trace of the former existence of an Arabian tribe of Zabadeans in that district. The name occurs not unfrequently in this region, for there is a Kefr Zebad a short distance NW. of ez-Zebedani, and forms of the same name are often met with on inscriptions from Tadmor and its environs. 2

S. A. c.

1 See Dalman, Aram. Dialektproben, 334 (Leipsic, 1896).

2 On a Greek inscription (Waddington, 2597) mention is made of oi ex yei/oOt <Ja/3Si/3ii)Afji [oi ek genous zabdibooleoon], a family whose name was a compound of Zabdi and the Palmyrene deity Bol.

ZABBAI[edit]

("3T, either miswritten for ZACCAI, or from Zabdai or ZEBADIAH ; see 52, and cp perhaps *3T in Palm, [de Vogue, Syr. Centr. 28] ; z<\Boy [BXA]).

1. One of the b'ne BEBAI [q.v.] Ezra 10:28 (frflovO [L}) = 1 Esd. 9:29 JOSABAD, RV JOZABAD (s"a/35o? [B], u^a|3a&&gt;c [A], fafiovO [zabouth] [L]).

2. Father of Baruch, who helped to repair the city wall (Neh. 3:20, fa|3pou [zabrou] [X], pa/9ai [rabbai] [L]). The reading of the Kr. is ZACCAI (<2l), which is supported by Pesh. and Vg. (ZACHAI).

ZABBUD[edit]

(-J3T. Kt -). Ezra 8:14. EV. See ZABUD, 2.

ZABDEUS[edit]

(zABAAiOC [BA]), 1 Esd. 9:21 = Ezra 10:20, ZEBADIAH, 9.

ZABDI[edit]

(" : |3T, either a gentilic, of which there are two expanded forms ZABDIEL and ZEBADIAH, or, if these names have a religious reference, a shortened form, produced by omitting 7S ['L] or IV [YH]; note that Zabdi, 1, is a Zarhite (Che. ). Cp the Syr. Zabdai in NT for Zebedee ; fa/35[e> [zabd[e]i] [BAL]).

1. b. Zerah of Judah, an ancestor of ACHAN (Josh. 7:1, 7:17-18, a/x/3p[<:]i [zambr[e]i] {1} [BF], <x/3pi [zabri] [A]); in 1 Ch. 26 his name appears as ZIMRI (q.v.).

2. Of BENJAMIN (9), assigned to the b'ne SHIMEI (q.v.); 1 Ch. 8:19 (r/3t [zebdi] [L]).

3. The SHIPHMITE (1 Ch. 27:27 ; DBB ri, faxpet o roO <rffyi>ei [zachrei o tou sephnei] [B], fa/3i . . . <r(#>n [zabdi ... sephni] [A], a|3i .V. o-a<|)anit [zabdi ... saphami] [L]), who was over the vineyard produce in David's time, perhaps a native of SHEPHAM (q.v.).

4. b. Asaph, an ancestor of MATTANIAH (Neh. 11:17, om. BX*A, e\p[e]i [zechr[e]i] [Xc.a mg. sup.L]) see ZICHRI (no. 11).

ZABDIEL[edit]

PN^I, either an expansion of the gentilic ZABDI [y.v.], or a religious name = 'gift of God', 21, 27 ; the attribution of Jashobeam [see 1] to the b'ne Perez - i.e., probably [see PEREZ] [not] to the Zarephathites - and the designation of Zabdiel, 2, as son of the [southern] Gileadites [see below], and of Zabdiel, 3, as an Arabian, together with many plausible parallels, favour the former view [Che.] ; ^a/36[e]tr)\ [zabd[e]iel] [BAL]).

1. Father of JASHOBEAM (1 Ch. 27:2).

2. 'Overseer' of the priests, temp. Nehemiah (Neh. 11:14). He is designated (at first sight very strangely) D Vnan-ja (RV 'the son of HAGGEDOLIM', RVmg. 'one of the great men'; AV 'the son of [one of] the great men'; fiaSiijX [badiel] [B], baTinA [baziel] [X*], TfXpinA uios Twv ueyaAwn [zechriel uios toon megaloon] [Xc.a mg. L], ToxpinA [zochriel] [A])

It can [not], however, be shown (cp SHAPHAT, 3) that there was a Gilead in the Negeb, and the case of n*Sl3 ('Gedaliah'), from n lSj - i.e., *i?3i 'the Gileadite' - justifies us in reading DHJ??jirrj3j 'son of the Gileadites' (for parallels in Neh. 3:8, see PERFUMER). See Crit. Bib. (Che.).

3. 'The Arabian', who took off the head of Alexander Balas and sent it to Ptolemy (1 Macc. 11:17 : fa/35i7;\ 6 apat// [zabdiel o araps] [AXV], ^sa T [Pesh.] ; {2} Jos. Ant. 13:4:8 ; fa/3Xos [zabeilos]). Possibly the Diodes of Diod. (Fr. 32:10:1), see IMALCUE.

ZABUD[edit]

(T13T, a name belonging to the same group as Zabdi, Zabdiel, Zebadiah, and in its origin therefore most probably a clan-name [Che.], but probably understood in later times as meaning 'given [by God]' ; cp 56 ; the fem. form is ZEBUDAH. The correct reading, however, both of 1 and of 2 may be ZACCUR). {3}

1. b. Nathan, priest (AV 'principal officer'; cp 2 S. 8:13, AV 'chief rulers') and 'friend' (i.e. , 'chief courtier'), of king Solomon, 1 K. 4:5-6 (fa/3oi>0 [zabouth] [B], fa/3/3 [zabbouth] [A] f a X"P [zachour] [L] - i.e., -ii3T which is the reading of some MSS ; cp jasj). LXX, however (except A, which adds upevs [hiereus]), omits 'priest'. Probably 'friend' (nj?n ; on the pointing see HUSHAI, n. i) is a gloss on jna, or, as we should rather read, ?3b (see MINISTER [CHIEF]); cp the paraphrastic substitute for n :n3 (rather C JDD) as applied to sons of David, in 1 Ch. 18:17. The whole passage (1 K. 4:5, 6:6a) is thus read by Klostermann,

'And Zabud, son of Nathan, the king's friend [njn ; or "adjutant"= JDD?], his (i.e. , Azariah's) brother, was chief

of the palace'; see AHISHAR, but cp Crit. Bib. for another explanation of -insrrm (ninrx).

T. K. C.

2. A Jew belonging to the b'ne Bigvai, who came with Ezra from Babylon, Ezra 8:14 (EV ZABBUD, following the consonants of the Kt. 7i31 [Ba. Ginsb. ] and the vowels of the Kr. -nsi ; fafiovd [zaboud] [A] ; om. B ; faxxovp [zakchour] [L] ; cp L in no. 1) = 1 Esd. 8:40-41, where for 'and Zabud' we read 'the [son] of ISTALCURUS' [EV] (i<TTa.Ka\Kov [istakalkou] [B], 6 TOU iffTa\Kovpov [o tou istalkourou] [A], but /col faicxovp [kai zakchour] [L]), a monstrous name made up of 'Iztal' (a misreading of -on [VZBD], 'and Zabud') and 'ZACCUR' (nnt), the reading of the Kr. and EVmg. in Ezra.

1 The ft [beta] is to be explained in the same way as in JAMBRI, ficrr)ju/3pia. [mesembria] etc., the confusion of 3 [beth] and a [M or S or T] is phonetic, of T [Dalet] and 1 [Resh] graphic (cp SBOT, Chron. ad lac., and see Dr. TBS p. 68).

2 Cp perhaps with this the Palm, name S^ T (Mordt. Beitr. z. Kund. Palm. no. 69).

3 Zabud, 1, is the 'Kaxovp [kachour] son of Nathan 6 o-vju/3ouAos [o somboulos]' mentioned in 1 K. 2:46 h (B) where 82, 93, 108 etc. read aK\ovp [zakchour], 52, 55, etc., dxovp [zachou]. Note that in 4:5-6 axovp [zachour] is read by 82, 108, and a.K\ovp [zakchour] by 93. See COUNSELLOR.

ZABULON[edit]

(zABoyAcoN [Ti. WH]), Mt. 4:13, 4:15 AV, RV ZEBULON.

ZACCAI[edit]

( 3T written 3T ; abbrev. from ZACHARIAH, 52, cp HAGGAI), the name of a post-exilic family; Ezra 2:9 (&KXOV [zakchou] [B], - X a.v [zakchan] [Avid.], - X aiou [zakchaiou] [L]), Neh. 7:14 (frOov [zathou] [BX]. faic-\ovp [zakchour] [A], faxaiou [zakchaiou] [L]). In 1 Esd. 5:12 it is |AV] CORBE, or [RV] CHORBE (\op?e [chorbe] [BA], fa^ai [zakchai] [L]). Zaccai is the Kr. also in Neh. 3:20, where Ktb. has ZABBAI (q.v.).

ZACCAEUS[edit]

(zAKXAIOC [AV; Ti. WH], see ZACCAI).

1. AV Zaccheus, an officer belonging to Judas the Maccabee (2 Macc. 10:19), identified by some with the Zacharias of 1 Macc. 5:56.

2. A chief publican (dpxtreXoii Tjs [architeloones]) who received Jesus on his entry into Jericho (Lk. 19:1-10). There is much picturesqueness in the narrative; even if only a reflection of the more historical story in Lk. 5:27-32, no one would wish to lose the beautiful picture of the care of Jesus for the meanest and most despised. The improbabilities can hardly be denied. The only complete parallel to Lk. 19:5 is in Jn. 1:47, {1} which occurs in the ill-attested narrative of Nathanael. Nor is the crowd of curious followers (v. 3) natural; it was the object of Jesus on this journey to avoid observation. Zacchaeus's solemn act of atonement for injustice is also very abruptly introduced, nor can one easily believe that Jesus, in his present circumstances, would have openly announced his intention of lodging with a publican (see PUBLICAN). Zacchzeus's name, too (=pure, innocent), as Keim (Jesu von Naz. 3:49) points out, is suspiciously prophetic of his act of repentance. To identify him either with NATHANAEL (q.v. ) or with Paul (the little) does not help us at all. On Lk. 19:4, see SYCOMORE.

A late tradition (Clem. Rec.) makes Zacchaeus a comrade of Peter.

T. K. C.


1 Plummer, indeed (St. Luke, 434), thinks that 'there is no need to suppose that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the name. . . . Jesus might hear the people calling to Zacchaeus, or might inquire'. So Weiss (Leben Jesu, 2:417), 'Jesus easily learned the name and character of the notorious man'. But this is hardly in accordance with the intention of the evangelist, or with the natural impression of readers.

ZACCUR[edit]

(1-13T, see NAMES, 32, 52 ; but, the names with which Zaccur and ZICHRI [q.v.] are grouped being originally ethnics, it is plain that Zaccur and Zichri, too, are ethnics which have been converted into personal names ; cp ZACHER, ZECHARIAH, and see below ; aK\ovp [zakchour] [BXAL]).

1. Father of SHAMMUA ( = Shimei), of REUBEN (11-12); Nu. 13:4 [P] (&KXVP [zakchur] [B], ^pov [zachrou] [A], a. X ovp [zachour] [F], fryxovp [zagchour] [L]).

2. AV Zacchur, a Simeonite, brother of Hammuel = [not] Jerahmeel, and Shimei = Shimeoni ; 1 Ch. 4:26 (om. B, a\ovp [zachour] [L]).

3. A Merarite Levite, brother of SHOHAM = Moshe, and Ibri = Arabi - i.e., N. Arabian (1 Ch. 24:27).

4. An Asaphite Levite, brother of Nethaniah = Ethani, and Asharelah = Jizreel or 'Jezreelite' (1 Ch. 25:2, 25:10 ; <rcucxovs [sakchous], axxv6 [zachchouth] [B]); see ZICHRI, 11.

5. Ezra 8:14 EVmg (fa/c^oup [zachoor] [L]). See ZABUD, 2.

6. b. Imri ( = Amariah = [not] Jerahmeel) in list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, 1-2 ; EZRA ii., 16 [1], 15 d), Neh. 3:2 (<Ja/3aoup [zabaour] [B], <Jaxxoup [zachchour] [X])

7. Levite signatory to the covenant, grouped with SHERERIAH and SHEBANIAH, both ethnics (see EZRA i., 7) ; Neh. 10:12 [10:13] (* W [zachour] [B], frK X <ap [zakchour] [A], <ra XX u,p [zachchoor] [X[aleph] ?]).

8. b. Mattaniah (i.e., [not] Ethani or Temani), and father of HANAN (q.v.) ; Neh. 13:13 (<ra/c X ovp [sakchour] [L]).

A writer in PSBA has suggested that Zechariah and the related names may be connected with Zakkara, the name (of uncertain pronunciation) of allies of the Purusati ( = Pelishtim? - see PHILISTINES, 3). But if so, why do we not find any of these names given to Israelites of central Palestine (see DOR, 2)? It is more probable that Zacher (Zecher), Zaccur, and Zichri with Zechariah were originally the clan-names Zerah and Zarhi respectively. Cp ZERAH.

T. K. C.

ZACHARIAH[edit]

irr-QT).

1. 2 K. 14:29, 15:8-12 and (2) 2 K. 18:2 : see ZECHARIAH, 2, 3.

3. (Cjaxapias [zacharias]) Mt. 23:35, Lk. 11:51 in RV, AV ZACHARIAS, 9.

ZACHARIAS[edit]

in NT RV Zachariah (ZAXAPIAC [BAL ; Ti. WH]).

1. A priest (1 Esd. 1:8). See ZECHARIAH, 19.

2. The name in 1 Esd. 1:15 corresponding to HEMAN in the || passage 2 Ch. 35:15 (LXX{L} ai/u.ai [aiman] = Heman).

3. RV ZARAIAS (q.v.) in 1 Esd. 5:8 (fapaiou [zaraiou] [B], (Japeou [zareou] [A], 0-apouou [saraiou] [L]). AV, following the Geneva Bible, gives ZACHARIAS. See SERAIAH, 8.

4. 1 Esd. 6:1, 7:3, see ZECHARIAH, 1.

5. 1 Esd. 8:30, 8:44.

6. 1 Esd. 8:37 (axapu [zachariai] [B]).

7. 1 Esd. 9:27; see ZECHARIAH, 20, 21, 22.

8. Father of JOSEPH (temp. Judas Maccabaeus), 1 Macc. 5:18, 5:56-62.

9. Son of Barachias ; according to Mt. 23:35, the last Jewish martyr of the pre-Christian period. All the innocent blood shed on the land (firl TTJS yrjs [epi tes ges]) from that of Abel to that of Zacharias, son of Barachias ('whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar', see RV) is to be visited, says Jesus, 'on this generation'. Lk. , however (11:51), is without 'son of Barachias', and Jerome says that 'in the Gospel used by the Nazarenes [the Gospel according to the Hebrews], instead of son of Barachias we find written son of Joiada' (in l.c. Mt. ). We may, therefore, disregard the artificial Gnostic and patristic legends, which state (see Protevang. Jac. 23-24, and cp Keim, Jesus of Nazara, 2:209) that Herod, who supposed John to be the Messiah, murdered Zacharias the father of John the Baptist in the temple by the altar of sacrifice (see 10) ; and not less the hypothesis that Jesus refers prophetically to Zacharias the son of Baruch (but Niese has Bapeis [bareis]), who was killed 'in the middle of the temple' in the first Roman war (Jos. BJ 4:54). It is possible, however, that 'Barachias' means the father of Zechariah the well-known prophet, and that it is a mere clerical error for 'Joiada'; {1} possible, too, that the whole passage has been filled out by a later writer who knew of the horrible murder mentioned by Josephus. This assumes that Jesus really meant Zechariah b. Jehoiada (ZECHARIAH, 15). But the reason given for the phrase 'from Abel to Zechariah b. Jehoiada' (that Chronicles is the last book in the Jewish Canon) seems very inadequate (see GOSPELS, 150). According to N. Schmidt (JBL 19:22, n. i), Mt. 23:33 once formed part of an 'Apocalypse of Jesus' (cp Mt. 24) which cannot have been written long before the end of the first century (cp We. IJG (3) 366; Skizzen, [1899] 6:20+). If so, the reference to Zechariah b. Baruch was full of significance to the original readers.

10. The father of JOHN THE BAPTIST (q.v.), mentioned only in Lk. 1:5, 1:8-23, 1:39-79, 3:2. He was of the course of Abijah (see Schur., Hist. 2:1:216+), and his home was in an unnamed city of Judah. According to a comparatively early tradition the 'city' is 'Ain Karim (see BETH-HACCEREM), and Mar Zakarya is the precise spot where Zacharias dwelt ; even recently Schick has spoken a word for this tradition (ZDPV [1899] 22:90+). But the fact that no name is given most probably indicates that the narrative in Lk. 1 had but recently arisen when it was admitted by Lk. into his Gospel ; the narrator hoped to be able to supply the name later (cp an analogous case in 1 S. 13:1, if H. P. Smith s view is correct). Though JUTTAH (q.v.) is philologically and otherwise improbable, 'Ain Karim (Schick) and Hebron (Ew. , Keim) are also baseless fancies. From Lk. 1:30 we should expect some city near the desert to be meant. It was in the temple, however, that Zacharias is said to have received a divine announcement of the birth of a son ; the announcement is made in terms partly resembling those used to Manoah's wife in Judg. 13:5-6 Zacharias craved a sign, and is punished by dumbness until the fulfilment of the promise. When the child is born, the father names him John (cp Jos. Ant. 14:1:3). The Protev. Jac. seeks to improve upon this by making Zacharias the high priest : he enters the Holy of Holies in his sacred attire. We are not told that it was merely 'a voice' (Bath kol ; cp Mt. 3:17) that Zacharias heard ; the parallel of the oracle given to John Hyrcanus, the high priest, as he was offering incense alone in the temple (Jos. Ant. 13:10:3), is therefore imperfect. The long stay of Zacharias in the temple, and the surprise which it produced (Lk. 1:21), may, however, be paralleled by the long stay of Simon the Righteous in the temple on the Day of Atonement, when he prayed that the sanctuary might not be destroyed (Talm. Jer. Yoma. 5:2). Cp INCENSE, 7, n. On the legendary death of Zacharias, see above, 9. Cp JOHN THE BAPTIST.

T. K. C.

1 Cp the inaccuracy of the Tg. on Lam. 2:20 (ZECHARIAH, 15)

ZACHER[edit]

or, as RV, ZECHER (-QJ ; ZAXOYP [zachour] [B]. fax- [zakchour] [A], f Xpi [zechri] [L]), 1 Ch. 8:31-32, called, in 1 Ch. 9:37 ZECHARIAH (q.v., 6). On the possible ethnic character of Zecher see ZACCUR.

ZADOK[edit]

(pm [TsDVQ], once p lS [TsDQ], 1 K. 1:26 ; 'just', 56-57; cp JEHOZADAK, and see SADUUCEES. {1} Similar in meaning is the form Zadduk [plis], which is not unfrequent in post-biblical times, cp Aboth, 4:56 ; Strack, ad loc. ; Lag. Nam. 225+. Sadduk is the form generally presupposed by LXX{BXAL} [O-O.&&OVK [saddouk]; <ra6<uK [sadook], LXX{BXA} in nos. 2-5 [and BA in 2 S. with exception of 2 S. 8:17, 1 Ch. 29:22 A], is somewhat less common. Other variations are <raaSovK [saadouk], Ezra 7:2 [A]; <ra&&ov\ [saddouch], Ezek. 40:46 [A]; <ra66oic [saddok], Neh. 11:11 [L], and craS&uK [saddook], 2 S. 15:24-27 [L] ; <ra&ovK [sadouk], 2 S. 8:17, 1 Ch. 6:38 [6:53], 15:11 [L], Neh. 11:11 [X], 1 K. 4:4 [B], * [sadouch], 2 S. 8:17 [A]; ia/3oK [iabok], 2 S. 15:27 [A]. SADDUC, RV SAUDUK (1 Esd. 6:2 ; o-aSSovKov [saddoukou] [A]) ; SADOC (4 Esd. 1:1).

1 [There is another view as to the origin of Zadok - viz., that it is a modification of a gentilic name. This seems to be favoured by [cheyne] an examination of the names with which this name is associated in Chron. and Neh. It will, however, be permissible to hold that the Zidkites (originally, it would appear, settled in the Negeb) may have derived their name from p7x [TsDQ], a secondary title of the god worshipped in primitive times by this clan; also that cultivated Israelites in later times interpeted 'Zadok' as meaning 'just', 'righteous' (cp ZEDEKIAH, 1). T. K. c.]

1. The Zadok of David.[edit]

i. Zadok the son of Ahitub, a priest who held a prominent place at David's court and played a great part in securing the throne for David's successor. We know nothing of his real origin, nor can we say when or how he became priest in the royal sanctuary at Jerusalem. We learn, however, from 2 S. 8:17+ (cp 20:23-26, and see Bu. Rel. Sem. 247, 254) that he was associated with Abiathar (for the correct reading see Driver, TBS ad loc. } and with some of David s own sons in the priestly office at Jerusalem. Like Abiathar he was true to his sovereign during Absalom's revolt ; like him he bore the ark of Yahwe when David was fleeing eastward from the royal city; at David's request he with Abiathar bore the palladium of Israel back to the capital, and there with Abiathar did the work of a spy and supplied the king with information about the designs of Absalom and the other rebels. So far Zadok had been closely associated with that older and greater priest who represented the ancient family of the b'ne Eli and that sanctuary at Shiloh in which they had ministered. In the end he supplanted Abiathar altogether. For Zadok joined Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, captain of the foreign guards, in the harem intrigue which set aside Adonijah the legitimate heir, and placed Solomon the son of Bath-sheba on the throne. Abiathar, on the contrary, stood by Joab, the royal princes, except of course Solomon, and the rest of the more conservative party. Naturally, therefore, when Solomon became king, it was Zadok who anointed him ; Abiathar, on the other hand, was banished to Anathoth ; the family of Eli forfeited the priesthood. and the chief care of the royal chapel or temple at Jerusalem was entrusted to Zadok and his descendants.

2. Zadok and Eli.[edit]

In their hands it remained down to the time of the exile; but we have in 1 S. 2:35-36 interesting evidence that the prior claims of the b'ne Eli and their eminence, long before Zadok had been heard of, were not forgotten. The author of the passage in question probably belonged to the period of the Deuteronomic reform. Like Jeremiah (7:12, 26:6) he regarded the temple at Shiloh as the precursor of the temple at Jerusalem. He felt, therefore, that some reason must be given for the fact that the family of Eli which had officiated so long in Shiloh did not continue to do so in Jerusalem. Political grounds and the authority of the king to regulate the service in his own chapel had satisfied the religious ideas of a simpler age, but did not by any means appear sufficient to one who had imbibed the ideas of Deuteronomy and regarded the priesthood as directly subject to divine regulation. Accordingly he puts into the mouth of an anonymous prophet the prediction that Eli's indulgence of his depraved sons was to be visited upon his descendants by the loss of the priesthood. Instead of the b'ne Eli Yahwe was to raise up a new priestly race, and they were to perform priestly functions before the anointed king of Judah. The new family of priests was to share in the perpetual endurance of the royal house. In contrast with the Zadokites, the b'ne Eli were to sink into obscurity and want. They were to petition their rivals for the most subordinate offices of the priesthood. Here perhaps the writer is thinking of the priests at the high places who had been driven by Josiah from their occupation, and had to depend for the future on the grace of the priests at Jerusalem. True, the Deuteronomical code had given the country Levites right to sacrifice at Jerusalem (Dt. 18:7-8); but though some provision was made for them, the generous rate of D proved impracticable. See ELI.

3. Zadok and Ezekiel.[edit]

It is in any case certain that Ezekiel during the exile, in a prophecy which was written about 573 B. c., vindicated the sole right of the Zadokites to the priesthood. He draws the sharpest line of demarcation between the sons of Zadok and other Levites. In D all Levites form an ideal unity, all have in theory equal rights. Ezekiel, on the contrary, passes sentence on the mere Levites, holding them responsible for that worship on the high places which was to him no better than idolatrous. In time to come they are, he says, to be debarred from 'approaching' Yahwe in priestly service. They are to be content with menial work, such as the slaughter of victims and cooking their flesh, keeping guard over the temple doors, etc. ; only such Levites as were sons of Zadok might presume to lay the fat and blood on the altar (Ezek. 44:15-16).

4. Zadok in P.[edit]

Two changes were yet to be made in the position of the sons of Zadok, one enhancing their prestige, the other modifying the exclusiveness of their claims. First. whereas Ezekiel frankly took for granted the novelty of those unique rights which he claimed for the Zadokites, the 'Priestly Code' somewhat later put the divine election of the priestly house back to the very dawn of Israel's history, back to the time when Yahwe chose Aaron as his priest. Hence the Chronicler (1 Ch. 6:53) was obliged to trace the genealogy of Zadok to Eleazar the son of Aaron. In the next place the ideal of Ezekiel was not perfectly realised. No doubt few Levites of inferior family, in proportion to the Zadokite priests, returned under Zerubbabel and later under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 7:39-40, Ezra 8:2-3). Thus the Zadokites cannot have had serious difficulty in securing that pre-eminence which Ezekiel claimed for them. Nevertheless it seems that a certain Daniel of the sons of Ithamar (Ezra 8:2; see DANIEL, 3) accompanied Ezra and, owing perhaps to the wealth and consideration which his family enjoyed, contrived to share in those priestly privileges which D had assigned to all the Levites. Such, at least, is the ingenious theory of Kautzsch (Sf. Kr. , 1890, p. 778-779), and we may in any case be sure that some Levites who did not claim origin from Zadok were priests in the second temple. In their favour, then, the theory of descent was modified. It was said that Aaron had two sons who left issue : Eleazar, father of that line to which legitimate high priests belonged, and Ithamar, the ancestor of legitimate priests but not of legitimate high priests (so P in Ex. 6:23, Lev. 10:6, Nu. 4:28, so also 1 Ch. 24:6). The Chronicler assigns sixteen classes to the sons of Eleazar - i.e. , the Zadokites - and half that number to the descendants of Ithamar (1 Ch. 24:4). In this way also he is able partially to reconcile the double priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar with the notions of his own time, since, as descendants of Ithamar, the b'ne Eli were often lawful priests, though not high priests. See ELEAZAR, ELI, ITHAMAR, and cp, further, SADDUCEES.

2. Father of JERUSHA [q.v.] (2 K. 15:33, 2 Ch. 27:1, <roScop [sadoor] [B]).

3. b. Baana, in list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, 1-2, EZRA ii., 16 [1], 15d), Neh. 3:4 (<ro5ouic [sadouk] [X]); he is doubtless the signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7) mentioned in Neh. 10:21 [10:22] (va&ovie [sadouk] [A], <TO&OVK [saddouk] [BX], e&Staic [eddook] [L]). In both cases the name occurs together with Meshezabeel.

4. b. IMMER [q.v.] (Neh. 3:29, <ra&ov\ [sadouch] [B]).

5. A scribe, temp. Ezra (Neh. 13:13, <ra.S&ovie [saddouk] [B]).

W. E. A.

ZAHAM[edit]

(DOT ; pooAAAM [roollam] [B], ZAAAM [zalam] [A], ZAAM [L]), a son of Rehoboam (2 Ch. 11:19). Perhaps from cm = ^cnT ; note LXX{BA} and cp RAHAM (Che.).

ZAIR[edit]

(in locative iTVL S [TsAYRH]; eic ceioop [eis seioor] [B]; om. A; K Cicop [eh sioor] [L]), a place on the way to Edom, where Jehoram, king of Judah, 'rose up by night and smote the Edomites who had surrounded him' (2 K. 8:21). See JEHORAM, 2. It is strange to find that he also smote 'the captains of the chariots', and we are in doubt as to the true reference of the following clause, and the people fled to their tents. According to Benzinger and Kittel, after v. 21a, the original narrative must have stated how Jehoram was surrounded in Zair (?) by the Edomites ; v. 21b (beginning rt^ S eg rcrr rn, EV 'and he rose [up] by night') must relate a defeat of Jehoram which nearly issued in the death or captivity of the king. The people who fled can only be the men of Judah. Stade, in ZATW 21:337-340 (1901), once more examines the passage, 2 K. 8:21-24, reaffirming his conclusion in GVI 1:537, n.1, so far as regards taking C HN as the subject of cp, and xn as an intentional alteration or correction.

Instead of 331,1 *~\O flNl, Benzinger and Kittel would read something like (or WN) i?i ~\71 IE"!. Both, however, hesitate to identify Zair. Ewald thought of Zoar (~lp> [TsAR) ; it is objected that this place-name in LXX is or)yo>p [segoor] or <riy<ap [sigoor] (implying y [A]= c, ), whereas Zair is <reuap [seioor], <ruop [sioor] (i.e., J? [A]=5-); see Buhl, Edomitetr, 65. The case, however, becomes entirely altered, if ch]~IN nas been mis-written (as in other passages) for C~N. It is a plausible theory that the passages relative to Edom in 2 Samuel and Kings (most, if not all of them) in their original form referred to 'Aram' - i.e., Jerahmeel, rather than to Edom (cp SAUL, 3 ; JOKTHEEL, 2 ; REZIN; SALT, VALLEY OF; ZOBAH). 2 K. 8:21 now becomes plain. Emending the text in accordance with numerous analogies we get, 'And Joram passed over to Mitstsur, and all the chariots with him, and [Aram] the Jerahmeelites smote him and the captains of the chariots ; and the people fled to their tents'. Missur was presumably a N. Arabian town, so called from the region of Mitstsur or Mitsrim (see MIZRAIM). It may have been originally intended in the list given in Josh. 15:52-54 by ZIOR (q.v.).

Muhlau (Riehm, HWB, 1813) thinks Conder's identification of Zair with the pass ez-Zuweret, in the SW. of the Dead Sea, worth consideration ; Buhl, however (Edomiter, 65, n. 2), finds it inconsistent with 13JT1 [ZYABR] (but LXX has avifri [anebe], 7JH [ZYAL], which may be right).

T. K. C.

ZALAPH[edit]

(^ ; ceAe [B], cAAe(b [X], -ceA [AL]). father of Hanun (Neh. 3:30).

ZALMON[edit]

(jtoVjf, see 4). The name occurs twice in the OT, more frequently in the Talmud, but without topographical data (Neub. Geog. 275).

1. (fpfMwv [ermoon] [BAL], acppuv [aermoon] [LXX{M} in Moore], fff\fj.wv [selmoon] [Eus. OS 295:73, without indication of site] ). The name given in MT to a mountain near Shechem {1} (Judg. 9:48-49).

1 One might naturally think of Gerizim; the argument offered for connecting the name with the southern peak of Hermon is perfectly absurd (see Moore, Judges, 265).

In the underlying story, however, the scene of the doings of Abimelech seems [not] to have been placed in the Negeb, in and near a place called Cusham; Jerahmeel-Cusham may also (but cp. SHECHEM, TOWER OF) be referred to. It is probably, therefore, some mountain of a Jerahmeelite range, and LXX{M}'s reading may be taken to confirm this. For i7ain (a-tpfjuav [aermoon]) is probably a popular corruption of jNOnT, {1} ar "J we shall see (see ZALMON, ii.) that poSs s not improbably a popular corruption of ^x^c" , now 'Jerahmeel' and 'Ishmael' are repeatedly used as synonyms so that in one form of the original story Mt. Jerahmeel may have been spoken of, and in another Mt. Ishmael. The corruptions 'Hermon' and 'Zalmon' may of course have been made very early. The equation, Hermon = Jerahmeel, illustrates Enoch 66 where the fallen angels are said to have descended on Mt. Hermon. Probably Mt. Jerahmeel was meant in the original story; six of the names of the fallen angels are clearly corrupt forms of Jerahmeel. The early legends may all have a Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian setting. Cp ZALMONAH.

2. AV SALMON (<reX/xwi> [selmoon] [BX] ; (reX/xw [selmoo] [Ra]), according to most, a mountain or mountain-range (Ps. 68:14-15 [68:15-16]). the dark rocks of which (as if pe^s [TsLMVN] meant 'dark-coloured,' from fja^x [root TsLM]; cp rnaSs) set off the brilliance of the snow, when, as in the depth of winter, snow-falls occurred. The psalmist is thought to compare the dead bodies, or perhaps the glistening arms or ornaments, of slain warriors to snow on Zalmon. Wetzstein (Ab/i. appended to Del. Hiob, and elsewhere) compares the cHraXuapo? [asalmanos] of Ptol. 5:15 (vat. lect. aXcraXauos [alsalamos], aX<ra5a^ios [alsadamos]) which is a name for the Hauran mountain range (alluding to the dark volcanic rocks). This is thought to be confirmed by reference to the Jebel Hauran in v. 15 [v. 16], where Wetzstein regards the phrase c*3J33 in as a picturesque description of the crater-formation of this highly-volcanic region (so Che. Ps. (1); Guthe, ZDPV, 1889, p. 231; Buhl, cautiously, Pal. 118; but not GASm. HG 550).

The whole passage, however, seems to be corrupt, and an adequate restoration can only be hoped for by a searching re-examination of the whole passage (see Che. Ps. (2)). Among the current emendations of po"7S [zalmon], Krochmal's JUi^S [TsLMVH or TsLTVH or TsLSVH] (derived from Tg.) is the most plausible. Duhm's J^u : 3 and Lagarde's 1H3 ^!?.? ! ? leave p.- 1 ?;* in all its unexpected and unlikely prominence.

T. K. C.

ZALMON[edit]

I po py ), the Ahohite, one of David's heroes ; 2 S. 23:28-29 (eAAcoN [elloon] - i.e., |PJ? [B], ceAAcoM [selloom] [A], eAlM&N [eliman] [L] ; Pesh. tsalmun. Vg. selmon) = 1 Ch. 11:29-30 (ILAI, fyy; HAei [ELEI] [B], HAi [ELI] [sup ras Aa], H A& [ela] [L] ; Pesh. all; 'ilai). See NAMES, 4.

Inferring from the reading of LXX{BL} in 2 S. that the form in y is original, Kittel ( 'Chron.' in SBOT) would read jS ^j;, Allman, and Marquart compares ALEMETH (q.v.) = ALMON (but both these names are probably [not] corruptions of 'Jerahmeel'). The name pcSs, however, is in itself highly probable. The three names psSjj, JWlsSsi a "d iUD^X a " point to the Negeb - all are N. Arabian, and all are [not] (or spring from) popular corruptions of Sx>C - a synonym, be it observed, of ^xariT- Cp Nu. 14:9, if the view (Crit. Bib.) is correct which makes cSs 13 Cn 1]Cn> I C T HT. an editorial attempt to make sense of the badly-written words of a gloss on 'the people of the land', viz., C ^XCrtT j P ^KOm 1 C S N "^-" ('Jerahmeeiites, Ishmaelites, Jerahmeelites'), for which numerous parallels can be offered (see Crit. Bib). 'They are our bread' and 'their shadow has departed from them' are clearly impossible. There is indeed another theory, which would be tempting, if we were to look at these names by themselves, and not in the light of convergent text-critical arguments - viz., to find in pnSs [zalmon] a trace of the god ch S (TsLM) worshipped at Teima (see ZALMUNNA). But in similar cases a better solution is generally forthcoming. Certainly one of David's heroes might well have a name corrupted from 'Ishmael' or 'Jerahmeel'.

T. K.. C.

ZALMONAH[edit]

(npi?V: ceAMOONA [BAL]). a stage in the wandering in the wilderness (Nu. 33:4-42).

The preceding station is Mt. Hor - i.e., according to the theory which best accounts for a multitude of facts, Mt. Jerahmeel (see MOSES, 14-18, with n. 2). Another name of some part of the chief Jerahmeelite mountain-range was probably Zalmon - i.e., Ishmael (a synonym of Jerahmeel).

It is reasonable to think that the name 'Zalmonah' is only a doublet of 'Hor', and that in reality the same mountain district is meant by both names. See, however, WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF.

T. K. c.

1 Note that in the MT of Ps. 42:7 [42:6] O'5xOi77' (Jerahmeelim) has become e SlSin- See MIZAR, THE HILL OF.

ZALMUNNA[edit]

(r 3D 1 ? V : CAAMANA [XARaTL], c&A-MAN [R*], but ceAMANA. [B]), a Midianite prince always mentioned with ZEBAH [q.v.] (Judg. 8:4+, Ps. 83:11). His name (the pointing of which seems designed to suggest the interpretation 'protection refused') is very probably compounded with that of the old deity c^x [TsLM] {1} (see TEMA). For the second part of the name we may compare the OT yjo , pan, and perhaps also nyjo on a Nabataean inscription from Hegra (cp Moore, Judges, 220), or the first part of the place-name Viryj (Josh. I9ij; cp npn, v. 13, and see Neubauer, Athenaeum, 28th Feb. 1885 ; Baethg. Beitr. 80-81).

S. A. C.

ZAMBRI[edit]

i. (zAMBpei [B], -pic [A]) 1 Esd. 9:34 RV (AV Zambis), Ezra 10:42 AMARIAH, 3.

2. (j-aAi f ip[]t [AXV]) 1 Macc. 2:2s6, RV ZIMRI, q.v.

ZAMOTH[edit]

(z*,MOe [BA]), 1 Esd. 9:28 = Ezra 10:27 , ZATTU.

ZAMZUMMIM[edit]

(D BTOT; ZOXOMCIN [B], -MM.N [B a - b ], ZOMZOMMCIN [A], zo/v\/V\iN [FL]), a branch of the REPHAIM (q.v. }, so called by the Ammonites (Dt. 2:20-21). Some compare Ar. zamzama, 'a distant rustling sound', and zizim, 'the hissing, whistling sound made by the jinn of the desert in the night' (so Schwally, ZATW, 1898, p. 138, and W. R. Smith, ap. Dr. Deut. 40).

But these early names are so liable to corruption that the view given elsewhere of the probable variant ZUZIM (q.v.) is perhaps [not] more probable.

T. K. C.

ZANOAH[edit]

(H13T, probably [not] an expanded Jerahmeelite clan-name [cp Shelah and Sha'ul], and, if so, presumably to be added to the group 2 containing Jaazaniah, Jezaniah, Aznoth-tabor, Uzzen-sheerah ; the superficially obvious meaning 'stench', though defensible [NAMES, 106], is hardly plausible, and the parallels for such a name are all textually suspicious - see, e.g. , MADMEN, OPHNI, ZIPHRON ; Z&NCO [zanoo] [BXAL]).

1. The name of a personified clan together with its chief centre, 1 Ch. 4:18 (fafj.uv [zamoon] [BA], j aj-we [L]).

The reputed father is Jekuthiel, a name which, like Joktheel and Eltekeh, is most [least] probably one of the many current corruptions of Jerahmeel. 3 The clan referred to was therefore of the Negeb (see closing paragraph).

2. A city in the SHEPHELAH (q.v.). Josh. 15:34 {ravta [tanoo] [B]). Also (Ges.-Bu.) mentioned in Neh. 3:13 (avdiv [zanoon] [L]) and 11:30 (om. BXA, favwe [Xc.a mg. inf.]). Robinson (BR 2:343) identifies with Zanu, a ruin 2.5 mi. S. from 'Ain Shems (see BETH-SHEMESH). In the preceding and following groups of names in Josh. 15:34 occur Zorah and Soco, which apparently suits the proposed identification. In OS 208:38, 159:12 Zanoah is stated to be in the district of Eleutheropolis.

3. A city in the hill-country of. Judah, Tosh. 15:56 (i~a.Kava.fifj. [zakanaeim], taking in ppn from v. 57 [B], favov [zanou] [L]). Van de Velde and Robinson identify with Za'nuta, a ruin SW. of Yutta (Jutta, mentioned in the preceding group in Tosh.), though, being nearly as far S. as esh-Shuweike (Socoh), it might seem more plausible to connect the name with 2.

There is, however, an element of uncertainty in these identifications, owing to the transference of names, and to the geo graphical mistakes of redactors (see SOCOH). The original Zanoah, like the original Socoh, was most probably [not] in the Negeb. In Neh. 11:30 'Adullam', which follows 'Zanoah', was [not] very probably a Jerahmeelite city in the Negeb, and 'Lachish' has arisen out of 'Eshcol' (see NEGEB, 7).

T. K. C.

1 So Noldeke and Clermont-Ganneau, Neubauer (Athenaeum, l.c.) suggests that the same divine name should be read in Nu. 14:9; 'D7i (not c - S, 'their shadow') has departed from them, but Yah we is with us'. LXX{BAFL}'s o xaip6&lts [o kairos] must have arisen out of o icupios [o kyrios] which a few MSS and the Arm. actually have (cp Neub. l.c.). The MT, however, makes a very satisfactory sense. In folk-lore the shadow is often identified with the object itself (cp Frazer, Golden Bough, (2) 1:287), and the loss of the shadow is regarded as the loss of life itself. [Note, however, the solution of the text-critical problem given elsewhere (ZALMON, 2).]

2 See SHAPHAN, UZZEN-SHEERAH.

3 See NEGEB, 7, and cp JOKTHEEL.

ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH[edit]

RV Zaphenath-paneah, ZA/V\4>ANH [psonthomphanech] [AE], ACAM<J>ANH [psonthomphanech], [L], t>A/v\4>ANH [zamphane], [asamphane], [saphamphane] [Aq.], CA<})A6JANH [saphathphane] [Sym. ]), the Egyptian name reported to have been given to Joseph by the Pharaoh (Gen. 41:45). For the older explanations see below. It has now become customary to seek explanations of the name from ancient Egyptian. Lenormant compares the title of Ka-mose, a king of the seventeenth dynasty, 'zaf-n-to', 'nourisher of the world' (Hist, anc, de l'or., 1869, 1363); this, he holds, explains Zaphnath. Since the time of Lepsius (Einl. in d. Chronologieder Agypten, 1:382) most scholars have explained mys [PANH] by the Egyptian pa-'anh (das Leben, la vie, life). Brugsch (Gesch. Ag., 1877, p. 248) formerly interpreted the whole name, 'governor of the district of the place of life' (i.e. , of the Sethroitic nome); but in 1891 (Die Aegyptologie, 240) he adopted Steindorff's explanation (see ZA 27:42), which is also given by Crum in Hastings' DB 1:66:5b, as the only admissible one, under the term jephnoute fonch (ze[d]-p-nute[r]-[e]f-'onh), 'God speaks (and) he lives', Lieblein, however ('Mots Egyptiens dans la Bible', PSBA, May 1898, pp. 202+), criticises this, and proposes the form cfnti pa-anh, 'he who gives the nourishment of life'. Finally, Marquart ('Chronol. Untersuch.', Philologus, 7:676-677) thinks that u] [NTh] ( = }n [ThN]) indicates that Joseph was a worshipper of Aten, the solar disk, the god honoured by Amenhotep IV. ; mil[s] [[P]ANTh] is misplaced, and belongs to the name of Joseph's wife (crux). The present writer held out as long as he could for an Egyptian explanation, regarding russ [TsPNTh] as a corruption of rays [PANTh], find explaining the latter in Lepsius way ; he inclined to read Joseph's Egyptian name as Pa-'anh, or rather Pianhi, which is the name of a famous king of the twenty-fifth dynasty ; this might mark the date of the Joseph narrative in its present form ; see EGYPT, 65-66, JOSEPH ii. , 4, n. It is of course possible that the redactor of the beautiful Joseph-story may have had such a name as Pianhi in his mind. But it can be made highly probable that underneath our Joseph-story there was another, the scene of which was laid in the Negeb and in the land of Mitsrim. If we accept this, we may reasonably suppose that rufls is a corruption or alteration of riEis. and mys of ons- The marriages of Joseph and of Eleazar b. Aharon are plainly parallel. Eleazar (Ex. 62:5) marries a daughter of PUTIEL ( =Zarephathi), and has a son named PHINEHAS (=Jerahrneel) ; Joseph marries a daughter of Potiphera ( =Zarephathi), and his own name is called Zarephath-jerahmeel. The marriage of Moses will also be remembered ; his wife's name was Zipporah, which (see MOSES, 2, 4) is most probably a modification or distortion of the place-name Zarephath.

The plausibility of Egyptological explanations must be admitted, even if we hold that the original narrators had a N. Arabian, not an Egyptian horizon. Already Jerome says, 'Interpretatur sermone Aegyptio . . . salvator mundi, eo quod orbera terra; ab imminente famis excidio liberavit'. Onk. gives, 'The man to whom mysteries are revealed'; ps.-Jon., 'the man who reveals mysteries'. Similarly Jos. Ant. 2:6:1, Pesh., Saad. See also Harkavy, Journ. As. (1870) 15:178+; Wiedemann, Sammlung altag. Worter, 21 ; Levesque, Rev. Bibl., 1899, pp. 412+.

T. K. C.

ZAPHON[edit]

(pSy. cp Sapuna in the Amarna Tablets 174:16, a S. Pal. city [see KAT (3) 479], and BAAL-ZEPHON), a Gadite city - cp the Gadite

1. The traditional facts.[edit]

names jiss and j rsi - lying 'in the valley' - i.e. of the Jordan (Josh. 13:27 CA(|>AN [B]. -o>N [A]), and again, according to RVmg, in the account of the quarrel of the Ephraimites with Jephthah (Judg. 12:1, rmss RVmg 'to ZAPHON'; KecJ>eiNA [kepheina] [A], ce(J>HNA [sephena] [L]; 'northwards' EV and LXX{B}) ; but others question the text (see JEPHTHAH, 3, n. i). It is mentioned after Beth-nimrah and Succoth. The Jer. Talm. (Sheb. 9:2, fol. 38d) identifies it with ina [MThV], the later Amatho, Amathus, and mod. 'Amateh, a little to the N. of the Zerka (Jabbok) on the E. bank of the Jordan, and at the mouth of the Wady er-Rugeib; {1} but Buhl considers this doubtful (Pal. 259; Ges.-Bu. s.v. ). Josephus (Ant. 13:12:5) mentions Afftatfuav [asoophoon] (Sohlatter, ZDPV 19224, A<rat;wv [asaphoon]) 'not far from the river Jordan' (oi> TfoppuOfv rod lopSdvov Trora/uoO [ou porroothen tou Iordanou potamou]).

2. Later researches.[edit]

The occurrence of Sapuna as a S. Palestinian place-name and of Baal-zephon in the account of the Exodus may well make us somewhat critical towards the statements of the traditional text respecting a trans-Jordanic Zaphon. There is also strong reason to think that when Jeremiah gives prophetic warning of an invasion of Jewish territory from the north (e.g., Jer. 1:14-15, 4:6, 6:1) it is not of the Scythians nor of any modern people that he is thinking, but of a people inhabiting a land called Zaphon or Zaphan (cp ZEPHANIAH). So in Joel 2:20 'the northern [army]', as EV renders, should rather be 'the Zephonite', and in Ezek. 38:6 it is [not] from the land of Zaphon, in N. Arabia, that the terrible hordes of Gog are to appear. In Jer. 15:12 too, 'iron from the north' should not improbably be 'iron from Zaphon'; the following words 'and brass' remind us that TUBAL-CAIN - i.e. , the Kenite Tubal according to the general view - was, '[the father of] every artificer of brass and iron'; and that Rehoboth was in David's time richly supplied with brass (see TEBAH).

It would take too much space to show what a bright light this theory (in connection with the larger historical theory of the relations between Israel-Judah and Jerahmeel) throws on many passages. But it may be well to point out (referring for details to Crit. Bib. ) that underlying the story of the Gileadite Jephthah there is an earlier story of a Jephthah in the Negeb, and that the troublesome word njlSS (EV northward) in Judg. 12:1 should probably be rendered 'to Zaphon'; the original narrative meant a locality in the Jerahmeelite Negeb. Also that in Josh. 13:27 the mention of Succoth and Zaphon is followed by 'the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon'. It appears as if P had access to early lists of names, the geographical reference of which he did not always understand.

T. K. C.

ZARA[edit]

(ZARA [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1:3 AV, RV ZERAH, 1.

ZARACES[edit]

RV Zarakes (ZARION [zarion] [B], ZARAKHN [AL]), in 1 Esd. 138 represents the JEHOAHAZ (q.v. ) of the corresponding passage 2 Ch. 364. According to 2 Ch. Jehoahaz was taken by Necho to Egypt ; but in the 1 Esd. passage he is brought by Joakim out of Egypt. This and other differences seem to be due to the fact that the author of 1 Esd. was copying from a corrupt or illegible Hebrew MS.

ZARAH[edit]

(IDT), Gen. 38:30 AV, RV ZERAH, 1.

ZARAIAS[edit]

(ZARAIOY [ B])

(1) 1 Esd. 5:8 = Ezra 2:2 SERAIAH, 7.

(2) 1 Esd. 8:2 (fa.pa.iov [zaraiou] [A]) ; see ZERAHIAH (1).

(3) 1 Esd. 8:31 (xpatov [zaraiou] [BAL]) ; see ZERAHIAH (2).

(4) 1 Esd. 8:34 (apaias [zaraias] [BA]) ; see ZEBADIAH (3).

ZARDEUS[edit]

(ZARAAIAC [A]), 1 Esd. 9:28 = Ezra 10:27 AZIZA.

ZAREAH[edit]

(ilinS), Neh. 11:29 AV, Zareathites (Ttinsn). 1 Ch. 2:53 AV. See ZORAH.

ZAREPHATH[edit]

(n?H> {2} ; - cApenTA [sarepta] [BAL]), a place on the high-road between Tyre and Sidon (cp Jer. OS 154:4), where, according to the traditional text, Elijah resided with a widow after leaving the brook Cherith (1 K. 17:9-10 cecpGA [sephtha] [A in v. 9] ; cp Lk. 4:26 cApeiTTA THC CIAOGNIAC [sarepta tes sidoonias], RV 'Zarephath, in the land of Sidon').

But the difficulty of supposing that this Phosnician woman was a worshipper of Yahwe is very great, and since

  • (1) CHERITH (q.v.) must [not] certainly be Rehoboth, and
  • (2) even the traditional text elsewhere makes Elijah seek out a refuge in N. Arabia (1 K. 10 ; see MIZRAIM), we are compelled to suppose corruption of the text, and to read in 1 K. 17:9, 'Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Musur' (TSsS "WN).

1 For Amathus, cp Burckh. Syr. 346, Buhl, Pal. 259, and Schur. GJV 1:221-222. It is often mentioned by Jos. (cp Ant. 13:3:3, 14:5:4, BJ 1:8:5), and is placed by him on the Jordan. Eus., on the contrary, makes it 21 R. im. from Pella (OS 219:76).

2 Lagarde (ubers. 84, note *) finds the vocalisation strange ; in Palestine we should expect rlST!f.

Zarephath is also mentioned as a border-city of Canaan in Obad. 20 (<rape</>0o>i> [sarephthoon] [Qa]), not, however, on the north, but on the south (see NEGEB, 3 ; SEPHARAD). A district of the Negeb, in the far S. of Palestine, was called after the Zarephathitesl (1 S. 30:16), and David's bodyguard was partly composed of Zarephathites. It is true, 'Pelethites', not 'Zarephathites', is the traditional reading in 2 S. 8:18 etc. ; but pelethi and also peleth in 1 Ch. 2:33 (Nu. 16:1) are corrupt, and ought probably to be read tsarephathi and tsarephath respectively (see PELETH, PELETHITES, and cp PALTI, 1).

It is also highly probable that the Zarephathites are the foes referred to in 2 S. 21:15-22. The nature of the war with the Philistines here referred to has surprised many readers ; it contrasts strongly with the warfare described in 1 S. 31. If, however, Pelishtim should rather be Tsarephathim (as certainly in 1 S. 30:16), we can much more easily understand the narrative. That 'Gath' and 'Gob' should rather be 'Rehoboth' is pointed out elsewhere (REHOBOTH). It was the warriors of Mutsri (see MIZRAIM, 2 b), famous in later tradition for their unusual stature, who at the time referred to gave David so much trouble. Mutsri may originally have included Zarephath and Rehoboth (see below, on Gen. 10:13-14). Not improbably 2 S. 21:15+ is properly the sequel of 2 S. 5:17-25. There is considerable reason to suppose that David conquered Rehoboth (miswritten in 2 S. 21:18+ Gob and Gath) - one of the chief cities of his foes - and fetched the ark of Yahwe from the house of OBED-EDOM the Rehobothite (not 'the Gittite'). A series of important corrections also becomes highly probable in 2 S. 5:17-25. 'Philistines' should probably be 'Zarephathites' (DTI2"I!>); 'the valley of Rephaim' should be 'the valley of the Jerahmeelites'; 'over against the mulberry trees' should be 'over against [Perez of] the Jerahmeelites'; 'in the tops of the mulberry trees' should be 'in Perez of the Jerahmeelites'. Perez, be it noted here again, is surely a corruption of Tsarefath (Zarephath) ; see PEKEZ. Consequently 'Baal-perazim' may well come from 'Baal-tsarefath (or -tsarefathim)'. Lastly, in the descriptive phrase 'from Geba as far as the approach to Gezer' (v. 25) the proper names should be 'Rehoboth' and 'Gadesh' = 'Kadesh' respectively. It also becomes probable that 'Perez-uzzah' in 2 S. 6:8 has arisen out of 'Tsarefath-azzah' (strong-Zarephath). Cp PERAZIM, PEREZ-UZZA. This involves parallel corrections in 2 S. 23:8-23. The 'Philistines' should very probably be 'the Zarephathites', just as in v. 21 'Egyptian' should doubtless be 'Mitsrite' (see MIZRAIM, 2b). David and his gibborim are fighting in the region which adjoins their own homes (cp HARARITE, JERAHZEEL, ZIKLAG), to maintain their hold on the 'cities of the Jerahmeelites' (see 1 S. 30:29). The 'Valley of Rephaim' should again be the 'Valley of the Jerahmeelites', and 'Bethlehem' (vv. 14-16) is an early corruption (like Ir hammelah) of Beth-jerahmeel. It may be added that it is probably the 'Zarephathites', not the 'Philistines', who fight against Keilah in the true text of 1 S. 23:1-5. Thus in the story of David, not less than in that of Jacob, there are traces of a more ancient and in some respects very different underlying narrative. Cp also SAUL.

It is moreover in a high degree [not] probable that the 'En-mishpat' of Gen. 14:7, which is loosely identified in an inserted gloss with 'Kadesh', should be corrected into 'En- (or rather Ir-) Zarephath' - i.e. 'fountain (rather, city) of Zarephath'. Certainly this helps to produce a consistent story ; Kadesh and Zarephath will be found (see SODOM) to be both mentioned in the more ancient narrative which underlies our Gen. 14, as, according to the view proposed above, both names occur in the story which underlies 2 S. 5:17-25. And the only plausible explanation of 'Hassophereth' or 'Sophereth' in Ezra 2:55, Neh. 7:57 is that it is a corruption of the same ancient place-name Zarephath.

This latter correction points the way to another of much greater importance - viz. CTlSTa (Tsarefathim) for C DIOS in Gen. 10:14 (see PATHRUSIM). That Misrim, not Mizraim, was the son of Ham (Jerahmeel), is a view which sheds a bright light on a series of obscure names (cp Crit. Bib.). And no one can fail to see at once how easily Zarephath might be miswritten as PUT (Gen 10:6) and as ZEPHATH (qq.v.). The difficulties of the narrative in Judg. 1:17 are considered elsewhere (HORMAH). It may, however, be pointed out again that the starting-point of the Judahites was Kadesh-'barnea' (see JERICHO, 2). There is a place on the way to Hormah, or rather Rahamah (see HOKMAH), which they would naturally attack in passing; it is Tsebaita {2} (24 mi. NNE. of 'Ain Kadis). The ruins (of the Byzantine period) are imposing; doubtless they stand on the site of much older cities. At the entrance of the only pass by which Sebaita can be approached is a ruined fort on the top of a hill ; this was probably an appendage of the ancient Zephath, which in spite of the imperfect phonetic correspondence of the names must be the Zephath or Zarephath of the OT. 3 We can now fully understand the journey of Elijah related in 1 K. 17:9. It is an easy day's journey from Ruheibeh (REHOBOTH, MT's 'Cherith') to Sebaita, though Palmer was accidentally delayed.

1 See NEGEB, 2. i. The commentators treat the difficulty of 'the land of the Philistines' too lightly. The view here adopted is that by an error of the scribe 31^ [TsRP] has become t 73 [PLSh]

2 We might also think of Mesraifeh, N. of Sebaita, but this is geographically less plausible. Least probable of all sites is the Nakb ets-Tsafa, SE. of Kurnub, though this commended itself to Robinson (BR (2) 2:181). See Trumbull, Kadesh-Barnea.

3 See Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 371+, Rowlands, the discoverer of the site, took the same view (G. Williams, Holy City, 1:464) ; also Furrer (Riehm, HWBV (2) 654-655).

Possibly the name Zarephath, as applied to a Phoenician town, appears under the disguise of MISREPHOTH-MAIM in Josh. 11:8, 13:6.

The Phoenician Zarephath is the Zarputa of the Egyptian Pap. Anast. 1 (RP (1) 2:110), and the Sariptu of the Taylor inscription of Sennacherib (KB 2:90) Muhlau (HWB (2), 1814) supposes glass-manufacture to have flourished at Zarephath ; Masius (in Poole's Syn.) thought of the smelting of metals. The modern name of Zarephath is Tsaraend, which is now about a mile from the coast, but was on the shore in the time of the Crusaders. See Rob. BR 2:475; Thomson, L. and B. 160+. Cp PHOENICIA, 4, 6.

In 2 S. 8:3, 8:12, 10:6, 10;8 we hear of a 'Hadad-ezer, . . . king of Zobah', whose realm we must suppose to have been either in Syria or in N. Palestine (see ZOBAH). It is however, somewhat more probable that rials [TsVBH] (Zobah) is a mutilated and corrupt form of nTli;, Tsarefath. The name Hadad-ezer for a N. Arabian king is perfectly credible. The 'images' of the Zarephathites (not 'Philistines') are spoken of in 2 S. 5:21 (an old narrative). An obscure passage in Judg. 17:7 becomes more significant if we suppose a reference to Zarephath. The young Levite there spoken of is described as 'out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah'. As Budde rightly sees, there is something wrong here ; he would correct 'Judah' into 'Moses' (cp 18:30). More [less] plausibly we may read 'from Beth-jerahmeel, from Zarephath of Judah' (s K anT for n-iirv cn s , and ns-isa for rinse-so; cp niE ie D for JVEns in Josh.). Tradition seems to connect the Levites with Kadesh, which was not far from Zarephath. For other supposed disguises of Zephath or Zarephath, seeSHAPHAT, TISHBEH ; cp also MICAH, BOOK OF. 4(-5); MEARAH ; MISREPHOTH-MAIM, TIRZAH, ZAKETHAN.

T. K. C.